Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-17 PacketCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 January 17, 1996 6:30 p.m. RESUME Welcomed Welcomed Approved o Roll Call Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance Introduction of New Employees a. Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor b. Melody Harris, Planning/Building Administrative Secretary 4. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 20, 1995 . . Approved Denied Adptd. Res. 96-36 Awarded Sweeney & Henley spoke . RIGHT TO APPEAl. DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Receive and Approve Report of December 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims Received from Barbara Silver, and John Fetzer, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF c. Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Requirement for Vehicles to Stop Prior to Proceeding Through a Narrow Portion of Beacon Lane d. Award of Bid for One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis to Ukiah Ford In the Amount of $21,805 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. Continued to February 7, 1996 9. a. Review and Conceptual Approval of Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact i. Adoption of Resolution UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approved StaffRec. a. Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Ukiah Municipal Landfill Adptd. Policy Res. 28 w/amended Exh. A 10. b. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Investment Policy and Discussion of City No. Treasurer Investment Reports NEW BUSINESS Approved CC96001 1/30 8:00 am UVCCa. Set Date and Time for City Council/Staff 1996/97 Budget Goal Setting Session b. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for the Formulation and Implementation of the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission i. Authorize the Mayor to Sign Memorandum Consenting to City Attorney's Dual Representation of City of Ukiah and Redwood Valley County Water District Relative to the Commission Approved CC96002 ii. Discussion of Draft No. 8 Joint Powers Agreement 1/30 6-8pm here c. Establish Date and Time for Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Concerning General Plan Implementation Strategy 11. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS 13. CLOSED SESSION- None 14. ADJOURNMENT To Council/City Staff Goal Setting Session at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 South School Street, Ukiah, at 8:00 a.m. on January 30, 1996 The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. M - Motion CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting RC - Roll Call CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 January 17, 1996 6:30 p.m. VV - Voice Vote PROMPT By D.H.'s Welcome Welcome M/RC 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Introduction of New Employees a. Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor b. Melody Harris, Planning/Building Administrative Secretary 4. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 20, 1995 o Mayor to Read . Mayor to Read All M/RC . Mayor to Read RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Receive and Approve Report of December 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims Received from Barbara Silver, and John Fetzer, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF c. Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Requirement for Vehicles to Stop Prior to Proceeding Through a Narrow Portion of Beacon Lane d. Award of Bid for One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis to Ukiah Ford In the Amount of $21,805 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. M/RC M/RC M/RC Announce . ao Review and Conceptual Approval of Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact i. Adoption of Resolution UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Ukiah Municipal Landfill b. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Investment Policy and Discussion of City Treasurer Investment Reports 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. 12. 13. 14. a. Set Date and Time for City Council/Staff 1996/97 Budget Goal Setting Session b. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for the Formulation and Implementation of the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission i. Authorize the Mayor to Sign Memorandum Consenting to City Attorney's Dual Representation of City of Ukiah and Redwood Valley County Water District Relative to the Commission ii. Discussion of Drat~ No. 8 Joint Powers Agreement c. Establish Date and Time for Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Concerning General Plan Implementation Strategy CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS CLOSED SESSION- None ADJOURNMENT To Council/City Staff Goal Setting Session Date and Time Or Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting, Whichever Comes First The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - December 20, 1995 DRAFT The City Council convened in a regular meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 6:33 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. Absent: None. Staff present: City Clerk McKay, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Public Utility Director Barnes, Senior Planner Stump, Recreation Coordinator Weselsky, Assistant Redevelopment Director DeKnoblough, City Engineer/Public Works Director Kennedy, and Executive Assistant Yoast. 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance The City Clerk delivered the Invocation and Councilmember Wattenburger led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL/CORRECTION OF MINUTES M/S Malone/Wattenburger to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of November 29, 1995 and the regular meeting of December 6, 1995, as submitted. Councilmember Mastin requested the motion BE withdrawn as he needs to abstain from the vote on the approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of December 6, 1995. Councilmember Malone, as the maker of the motion, withdrew his motion from the floor, with approval from Councilmember Wattenburger, the maker of the second to the motion. 3a. Regular Adjourned Meeting of November 29, 1995 M/S Shoemaker/Malone to approve the minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of November 29, 1995, as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 3b. Regular Meeting of December 6, 1995 M/S Malone/Wattenburger to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 6, 1995, as submitted. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers MaloJ,e, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. ABSTA.[N: Councilmember Mastin. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Schneiter reviewed Government Code Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Mastin/Malone to approve the Consent Calendar as follows; 5a. Approved the report of November 1995 Disbursements. 5b. Denied claims received from Susan Lanning; Crawford's VCR Repair; and referred them to the City's Insurance Carrier, REMIF. 5c. Adopted Ordinance No. 961 amending Article 17, Chapter 2, of the City Zoning Code for Off Street Parking and Loading. 5d. Adopted Resolution No. 96-33 establishing uniform hours during the day for which restricted on-street parking within the Downtown Parking District are effective. 5e. Adoption of Resolution No. 96-34 establishing two twenty-four minute on-street parking spaces at 582 N. State Street, in front of Henne's Candy and Ice Cream store. 5f. Awarded bid for 12,000 feet of 500 MCM Aluminum Conductor Reg. Mtg. December 20, 1995 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - December 20, 1995 Cable to Champion Wire and Cable in the amount of $12,625.47 and for 21,000 feet of 397.5 MCM Bare Conductor to King Wire and Cable Corporation in the amount of $10,315.31. 5g. Accepted the work as complete for placement of Street Striping 1995, Spec. No. 95-21, by Central Striping Service and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 5h. Authorized the City Clerk to continue advertising for the one vacancy on Airport Commission in the Ukiah Daily Journal. 5i. Approved the professional services agreement with Dot Brovarney for "Remember Your Relations" Elsie Allen Exhibit and Catalogue, in the amount of $7,000, and authorized the City Manager to execute contract. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Bill Fernandez, California State Automobile Association District Manager presented a plaque to the City of Ukiah for a AAA pedestrian protection program, based on 1994 fatalities, injuries, and enforcement compared to other national cities statistical comparisons. Mayor Schneiter received the award and expressed his appreciation for public safety and passed the plaque to the City Manager to display. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7a. Consideration of Letter Received from "Parents for Youth" Regarding 9th - 12th grade Boys Basketball Program The City Manager reported that the basketball program 5 week sign up deadline ended with only 29 High School boys applying with 8000 total children, grades 2 through 8, applying for City league basketball. She explained the staff procedures and processes in implementing this program. She explained the letter delivered from Vickie Sangiacomo from Parents for Youth, is a request to implement a High School league which cannot be done, at this late date by City staff, due to time constraints needed to develop gyms, practice/game times and staffing. She explained the City's available gym time is filled and Mendocino College charges $130 per day plus $40 per game, which is too costly. Vickie Sangiacomo, requested the City to reinstate boys basketball grades 9 - 12. She stated in the past this age group has had lots of participants who really need a program such as this. She noted that late signups were allowed in the past, and is unsure of why there were not enough sign ups by the deadline time. Discussion ensued regarding potential numbers of committed High School players and past numbers. Recreation Coordinator Weselsky reported last year there were a total of 800 children through High School who played City league basketball, with this year having 800 children without High School players. ' Discussion ensued regarding required number of boys and girls, gym space, staff needed for additional teams at this point in time, and various possibilities. Angela Hooper, suggested the reason High Schoolers signed up late, is that they do not read newspapers or hear radio announcements, and in the past, late signups were allowed by the City. Reg. Mtg. December 20, 1995 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - December 20, 1995 Mayor Schneiter noted that 800 other children were able to make the deadline. There was further discussion regarding potential City residency requirements, costs for sponsors, Mendocino College options, current City staffing level constraints, basketball starts playing games on January 6th, and coordination efforts for scheduling games and practices. Angela Hooper stated she is willing to volunteer. Councilmember Shoemaker noted he is willing to ask the College, but we need parent volunteers to coordinate this program, as City staff cannot do it, with a final deadline to January 6th. The City Manager explained City staff has already offered this option to the High School parents, as there was no available City staff or time available after the deadline time. Councilmember Shoemaker offered to sponsor one team this year if the parents can make it happen. Bob Webb offered his ideas as to why his High School son did not make the deadline for signups. The City Manager offered to have staff make up a list for parent volunteers, of what needs to get done, and noted it will take a tremendous amount of work to develop a High School league from scratch at this point. It was the consensus of Council for staff to try to facilitate and accommodate the volunteer parents who will develop this league and asked staff to keep Council apprised. NEW BUSINESS Sa. Adoption of Resolution Committing In-Kind Services for tile Performance of Environmental Review Documentation and Preliminary Engineering for the Orchard Avenue Bridge, Orchard Avenue Extension, Brush Street Improvement Project and Approval of Budget Amendment The City Engineer/Public Works Director reported the City has submitted two applications to the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) for federal funding under the Surface Transportation Program. He explained the function MCOG in nominating these projects for funding. He reported there are $277,841 current STP funds on haled with approximately $100,00 to 120,000 funds available for 1995/96 project funding. He reported according to MCOG procedure and policy, the project applicants arerequired to submit a funding commitment when other sources of funds are to be used as a project funding match, which this proposed Resolution will satisfy. He explained the upcoming City projects for the construction of Orchard Avenue Bridge at Orr Creek, Orchard Avenue Extension, Brush Street Improvements and State Street Road Surface Remediation. He reported these projects' environmental review and preliminary engineering was approved for funding, with an estimated $4,400 for in-house engineering services by City staff for preliminary plan, profile work and consultant contract administration, which will be considered as City matching funding. M/S Malone/Wattenburger to adopt Resolution No. 96-35, committil~g in-kind services for the performance of environmental review documentation and preliminary engineering for the Orchard Avenue Bridge, Orchard Avenue Extension, and Brush Street Improvement Project; and approve budget adjustments of 1) Create Fund No. 341, STP; 2) Allocate $50,000 Revenue in Account No. 341-0600-490; and 3) Allocate $50,000 expenditures in Account No. 341-9816-250. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Reg. Mtg. December 20, 1995 Page 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - December 20, 1995 8b. Discussion and Approval of Disbanding Cultural Arts Advisory Board (CAAB) The City Manager reported on the past accomplishments of the CAAB and the history of the policies, other community culture and art oriented groups. She explained the recommendation received from this Board, after lengthy discussions, is to recommend to Council that this Board disband, and reform when needed. Discussion ensued regarding the composition of membership of this Board, Boardmembers time constraints, and duplication of efforts within our community. M/S Wattenburger/Mastin to disband the Cultural Arts Advisory Board. The City Attorney advised Council to just accept resignations which will automatically render the Board as inactive. M/S Wattenburger/Mastin to allow the resignation of the entire Cultural Arts Advisory Board. The motion was carried with a unanimous voice vote of all AYE. The City Council expressed their appreciation to Marge Guintoli, for her efforts as a member of the CAAB. 9e CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS Councilmember Mastin wished everyone happy holidays. Councilmember Malone reported on current Chamber events. Councilmember Wattenburger - Expressed his appreciation for the help extended to him and his family after the big oak fell on his house during this recent storm. He reported on a meeting he attended regarding future courthouse space planning and noted he needs City staff technical assistance for future meetings. Councilmember Shoemaker - Questioned whether the City received notice of the intent from the County to lease the space at the old Rexall on Perkins and State by the County District Attorney Family Support Unit; reported on the Christmas lighting ceremony; noted he attended the Ukiah Police Dinner which was very nice; commented the City Employees Christmas awards dinner was the best ever regarding food and attitudes; reported January 9th is the Public Hearing for Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority the Environmental Impact Report for the transfer station with close for comments on January 24, 1996. Mayor Schneiter - Thanked all City staff for their great efforts after last weeks storm, and noted he will be out a week starting December 29th. 10. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS The City Manager reported on Christmas week staffing levels. Recess to Revelopment Agency - 7:43 p.m. Reconvened - 7:53 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 11a. As per Government Code Section 54957(e) Public Employee Discipline/Dismlssal/Release The City Attorney noted there is no action anticipated regarding this item of business. Council entered Closed Session at 7:54 p.m. Reg. Mtg. December 20, 1995 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - December 20, 1995 Council came out of Closed Session at 8:00 p.m. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. CCMIN.216 Cathy McKay CMC/AAE, City Clerk Reg. Mtg. December 20, 1995 Page 5 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 January 17, 1996 6:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Introduction of New Employees a. Patsy Archibald, Customer Service Supervisor b. Melody Harris, Planning/Building Administrative Secretary 4. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 20, 1995 . . RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. . a. Receive and Approve Report of December 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims Received from Barbara Silver, and John Fetzer, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF c. Adoption of Resolution Establishing the Requirement for Vehicles to Stop Prior to Proceeding Through a Narrow Portion of Beacon Lane d. Award of Bid for One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis to Ukiah Ford In the Amount of $21,805 AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. . . PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. a. Review and Conceptual Approval of Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact i. Adoption of Resolution UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Ukiah Municipal Landfill b. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Investment Policy and Discussion of City Treasurer Investment Reports 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. 12. 13. 14. a. Set Date and Time for City Council/Staff 1996/97 Budget Goal Setting Session b. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for the Formulation and Implementation of the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission i. Authorize the Mayor to Sign Memorandum Consenting to City Attorney's Dual Representation of City of Ukiah and Redwood Valley County Water District Relative to the Commission ii. Discussion of Draft No. 8 Joint Powers Agreement c. Establish Date and Time for Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting Concerning General Plan Implementation Strategy CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS CLOSED SESSION - None ADJOURNMENT To Council/City Staff Goal Setting Session Date and Time The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. ITEM NO. ~= DATE: January 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF PATSY ARCHIBALD, CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR Recently the newly created position of Customer Service Supervisor in the Billing and Collections division of the Finance Department was filled. Patsy Archibald started in this position on December 18, 1995. In the four weeks since starting with the City, Patsy has demonstrated her ability to make difficult decisions under trying circumstance. As the Customer Service Supervisor, Patsy has responsibility for the seven staff involved with billing and collection of amounts owed to the City. Patsy's varied background, which has prepared her for this position, includes service with the Lake County Social Services Department where she determined eligibility for potential Medi-Cal, Food Stamp and General Relief recipients. With Diversified Collection Services, in San Leandro, as an Administrative Supervisor, Patsy interviewed, hired and trained a team of collection and clerical staff responsible for collection of delinquent and defaulted student loans. Patsy also has six years experience as Office Manager for a dental office. I am very pleased to have Patsy as part of the Finance Department. I know she will increase the effectiveness and responsiveness of the City in the billing and collections area. Originally from Alameda, Patsy purchased a ranch east of Ukiah in 1993 and spends her spare time developing the property. Patsy also has two grown children in college in the Bay area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please welcome Patsy Archibald to the City of Ukiah. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Gordon Elton, Finance Director Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Finance Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: Candace Horsley, ~i ty Manager GE:INTRO.AGN ITEM NO. 3b DATE: January 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE - MELODY S. HARRIS The City of Ukiah is very fortunate to have Melody Harris as the new Planning/Building Department Administrative Secretary. Melody was hired in September 1995, after Marie Ulvila resigned to pursue a career with the Coffee Critic's truck racing team. Melody comes to the City with strong administrative secretarial experience. Prior to September, you may have seen her at Mendo Lake Credit Union, where she served as the Administrative Assistant to the Credit Union CEO and Vice President. Pdor to that time she worked in the medical and insurance fields. Melody brings to the Secretarial Pool a strong background in a variety of computer programs, including desktop publishing applications. This experience enabled her to jump right in and finalize the draft General Plan document in preparation for City Council adoption. She has received very positive reviews from the Planning Division, not only for her organizational skills but for her poised, efficient manner. Besides her job here at the City, one of Melody's favorite activities is camping with her husband, Bill, and 15-year old son, Stephen. When not working or camping she enjoys spending time reading, doing cross-stitch, and playing tennis. With her excellent skills and talents she is a very welcome addition to the Secretarial Pool. We are very pleased to be able to introduce Melody and we all look forward to a long and productive working relationship with her. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council help us welcome Melody Harris. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Prepared by: Karen Yoast, Executive Assistant Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None. R:4/CM~,SRMH ITEM NO. DATE January. 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS MADE DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1995 Payments made during the month of December, 1995, are summarized on the attached Register of Payroll and Demand Payments. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedules of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 74649 to 75086. Payroll check numbers: 62809 to 63259. This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve attached Report of Disbursements for December 1995. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Coordinated with: Kimberly Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Attachments: Report of Disbursements ~~: H;rsl~y, Cit~'~M~ager AGENDA.WPD/krs CITY OF UKIAH REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS DATE: DECEMBER 1995 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 74649 to 75086 inclusive. FUNDS: 100 General Fund $157,062.29 120 Capital Improvement 150 Civic Center Construction $163.06 141 Museum Grants $411.74 142 National Science Foundation $1,862.58 200 Asset Seizure Fund $3,913.11 220 Parking Dist. Rev. Fund $319.72 230 Parking Dist. //1 Rev. Fund 260 Downtown Business Improv. $1,825.05 300 Gas Tax $1,985.18 315 Airport Capital Improvement 320 Airport Clear Zone Fund 332 Federal Emergency Grant $17,695.00 335 Comm. Dev. Comm. Fund $18,500.00 405 Youth Services Ukiah $271.33 410 Conference Center Fund $15,306.66 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 575 Garage $25,482.47 600 Airport $19,027.39 618 Flood Damages $388.92 611 Sewer Construction Fund $8,107.07 612 City/District Sewer $24,169.01 620 Special Sewer Fund (Cap Imp) $530.94 652 Redip. Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanit. Disp. Site $27,606.93 662 663 665 67O 675 678 68O 693 695 696 697 698 8OO 8O5 820 920 910 900 940 950 960 962 965 966 310 JPA/LTF Fund Countywide JPA Refuse/Debris Control U.S.W. Billing & Collections Contracted Dispatch Services Public Safety Dispatch Ambulance Service Clubhouse Renovations Golf Warehouse/Stores Billing Enterprise Fund Fixed Asset Fund Electric Street Lights Water Liability Fund Worker's Comp. Fund Special Deposit Trust Payroll Posting Fund General Service Community Redev. Agency Redev. Housing Fund Redev. Capitol Imprv. Fund Redevelopment Debt Svc. Special Aviation Fund PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 62809 to 63061 (62809-62845 VOID) PAYROLL PERIOD 11/19/1995 to 12/02/1995 PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 63062 to 63259 PAYROLL PERIOD 12/03/95 to 12/16/1995 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS PAYROLL DED. CHECKS PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL PAYMENTS CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on $869.82 $119,649.79 $1,245.72 $1,214.34 $2,639.30 $36,007.33 $6,687.47 $25,234.86 $630.762.13 $8,127.29 $30,133.85 $40.587.00 $1,720.86 $101,150.84 $65.31 $33,786.78 $7,554.00 $260,392.01 $19,051.91 $1,651,509.06 $159,025.28 $366,177.21 $2,176,711.55 City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. City Manager CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve same for accuracy and available funds. Director of Finance I ur'} % ~ Q Q >Z QU~U D ~ Z~ DZ ~ 0Z ~ Z HZ~ ~0~ N~H~ ~H ~H~N ~NU ~N~D ~ZD 0DNZ ~>Zb ~ ~ ~Zb U~D ~0 ~00<HHm<<DODH~<m<0~ OO~O~O~OOO~~O~OOOO~ OOO~O~~¢¢~OO~O~ 0 U H ~o U , o > o oo oo oo oo oo oo ~-~- u~ k0k0 Oo O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOO O O OO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOO O O OO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOO O O OO O O · ~~~~ O ~ O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~~0~0 ~ OHHH~H~ O ~OOOOOOOHHHHH ~DDDDDDDDDDDD o~m ~ ~ ~ ~ oooo o o o ooo oooo o o o ooo oooo o o o ooo · ~ o o · ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ('4 ~OOO ,-I OOO O O O . O .O ~ . mOO r- co q~ O O OOOOOOO OO OO O ~O O O OO O O OOOOOOO OO OO O OOO O O OH O O OOOOOOO OO OO O OOO O O OO o o ~o~oooo o~ ~o ~ oo~ o o ~; ~ , , ,,,,.,,~.,~,. . , , ,, ~ ~ o oo~oooo.oo.~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~H~HH~OHHO~H O ~O · O OO oooo O o ooo oooo o o ooo oooo o o ooo oooo O O ~ ~ · ~ H HOO UUUU HHHH >>>~ UUUU ZZZZZ ~0~ ~o O~H~m H 0 H H U 0 ZHH '. u ~mmO H~ DZZZ o O O m~m 0 O o m~O ~ o H ~ O O O0 UU (D D ZO M ~ OH ~ H ~N 0 ~ H~ \ ~ ~ Ommm ~ Z ~ ~! um~m ~ H i 0 HO O UU VUOUUUUU U Z ~--- ZZ ~ ~ ~Z H HH HHHHHHHH H NN 0<(( OH D ~ H ~ ~zz~zzzzzzzz z mm mzzz ~ ~ O~ ~Z ~Z~~~ ~ ~ O~ O~ ~m BO ~0~~~ 000 UUUU HHHH ~>>>> ~0000 HHHH Ommmm mO000 [.-IN0 ~HHH ~t~ ~ ~DDD ~ ~ ~0 m~ ~ ~ ~ o U U U O H ~o U , > 0 ~ ~ H M HHH N HH M 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 O0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 000 ~ O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~ O0 0 ~o o H U ~ ~ ooo o0o o0o OH~ 0000 oo00 00oo 0000 o0oo o00oooo o0000oo 0oooo00 O0 oo oo 010~ oo O0 HIM ~o 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0o~ 0 ~ O O ~ O O O 0 O O O ~ 0 O O 0 O ~ o o o o o 0 N ~ ~ o U . ~1 o o o ~ 0~ ~0 o o - Z o o o o o ~ o 0 o o 0 OHO 000 . o ~m~o 0 oo O0 O0 ©© ×× 0 ooo 0o0 o000 0o00 00o0 HHHH 0000 ~0~ ~00 0 ~0~ 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00~000~ 0000000 HHHHHHH UU~UUU~ oo O0 oo 0 . oo . . O0 oo ©© mmO 0 o o 0 o 0 ~ : ~00o , ~ 0 mO00 ~ o 0oo0 0 0000 0 0 ~ ~ o , BUUUO  Z OQ~Q W Z o h ~ Q ~ o o H~O00 ~ 0 o ~0oo H ~ 0 ~HO~ 0 0 z ~ ~o~ z o 0 0 ~0 UUUU HHHH >>>> HHHH XXXX O~O~OO0 H 8 000 , 0 o oo~ ~.QQ.., ~.g~,.. OOOO000 ~0~00~ o m 0 ~ >~ ~ 0~o O0 O0 OO 0~ O0 OO O0 0~ 0 0 o 0 0 oo o 0 0 0 0 oo 0 o 0 o 0 oo o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~0 U'l u') ~ ~o O O O OOOOO O O OOOOO 0 · 00000 0 ~ 00000 O O O OO O O O OO O O O OO O ~0 O O 0~ O ~0~ O ~ t-IH 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 ~ 0 0 O0 O0 0 ~ ~ H ~ O0 U ~ 0 0 ~ ~ < ~ . ~ ®~ oo ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ H ~ o D O ~ D Q D ~H0 ~0 0 ~ ~ ZZQ HHD O oo O0 oo O O HOO O O OOO O O OOO ~ ~ ~00 o 0 O00H~ ~ ~ ooomm o 0 ooo~ H H H ~ H Z NHHmm H N Z H o m m m m ~ 000 m ~N~ 0 m~ ~ ~ 0 H HH H ~ H~ ~ mHH ~o u , > o,-.t oo oo oo 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 ~~0~ 0 00000000000 0 00000000000 0 00000000000 0 00000000000 0 00000000000 O0 O0 O0 %0%O 0000 0000 0000 O0 O0 O0 . . O0 . 0 O0 HH0 UU~ ~ooo~ ~oo ooooo ~oo oo~H~ ooo~ 00000 ~ . Oo~O ~mooo ~ 0 , o~o~ o oooooooooo o oooooooooo o oooooooooo .~oo~omo o Hoooo~o~ ~o~H~o 0 ~0~0~0~ ~HHHHMHHHMH o oo o oo o oo · o, > H mm0 U HH~ oooo oooo oooo oooo OUUU ~0 mmmmO OS HH Z z 0 ~H ~ D0 ~ 0~~ ~ ~ ~ZZZZZ H~ H UHHMMM ZO U HZ Z o ~ H H E~o U . o o ~o~ ~ ~ H o ~ ooooooo o oo o o oo ooooooo o oo o o oo ooooooo o oo o o oo ~~ 0 O0 0 0 ~ ~~ o oo o o ~ ~~0~ 0ooo00o0000o o00ooo0ooo0o 00000o00oo00 000o0000000o OOOOOOOOOOOO ~O~ O OOOOO O OOOOO O OOOOO O ~~ OOOO0 IIIII ~0 ~0 IIIII HHHHH oo OO O0 o o o ~ ~ 0 O0 0 o o oo 0 o OO ~ o o o oo o 0 oo ~ o' o o oo o ~ ~ O · o~o0~0o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ U O.OO.OO O O ~O~~ 4 O~ O O ~ ~ O ~N~ ~ ~ O O ~ z o ~ooo~ ~ oo o o ~ ~ o ~~ ~ oo o o ~ HH HH ~m oo uo ~0 0 ~ 00~00 ~ ~ ~ ~ HH Z Dm~ II0 D ~0 ~ ~0 U ~ ~ ~ 0 ~00~OO~ ~ OH~ O ~ ~H~ ~ , . . . 00 . . ., . . , 0 ~ >~oo>ooo ; ~®~ ~ ~ ~;~ 000000~00000 0 0 000000000000 0 0 000000000000 0 0 OOO~O~OO~OO~ ~ H 00~000000~00 0 ~ 0~00~~ ~ ~ 00~0000~0000 ~ H U HU ~ ~ ~Hhm~ ~h HH oPOOo D~% ~H~H0 00000 00000 00000 00~ ~000 ~0~0 ~0~ 00~0~ ~0~ HHH HH~ZZ ~HHH ~MHHQ oo O0 oo · , , 0 OO o~ ZH H~ O O~ H,, 0~ m Z z .. z DO o~ ~ ~ ~ ~w 0~ O HHHHHH Ox ~U H HH ~ ~ H OH > m m z u H NH · H~ 0 0~ e OH ~0 0~ .~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~H z ~HHHHHHHHHHHH ~ H~ mOOOOOOOOO000 ~ ~ .MHHH 0~ ZZZZ HHHH ~ mO h  o00 H 0~ 0~ 0 ~0 ~O H ~0 U . o > o ~O~H~ ooooooo0 oooooooo oo00ooo0 0oooo~ H~OOO HHHHHHHH 0000000 0000000 oo O0 oo oo OH~~O~~~O~~ ~~~0000000000~~ O000000000H~~H~H~H~H~ 000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0~O OO OO OO OO OO ~00~000 ooo0oooo ooo00o0o 00000000 00~0~0~ ,.....,0 000~0000 000~0~0~ UOm~ zzmm~m~mO OO ~ 0000000 0000000 0000©00 00~0~0 O0~H~ N~O~OO~ oo oo O0 · . oH ©© · · oo 0 000 00o · . . ooo 000 o0o OO~OOO00OO0OOWO0OOOO0OO0O 0 o000ooo000oo0~00000000oo0 o 0OOOOOOOO0000~OO000000OOO 0 OH~O000000~O~O000000~O~O0 ~ ~OON~~O~O~~O~O~ ~OOO~OO~OO~OO~~.~ ~OOO~O~O~OOO~OOOOv~O OOOOOOOO~OONNOOO~OOO~OOOOO OOOOOOOOO~O~H~~OO~O~O~ ~H ~ ~ ~O ~ H~ HZMHHH ~HZ,MHMHHHZHZHH H O~O~OOOO 0O ~DDDDDD D DD~D~ O ~ H H.. ~ ZH ~0 ~O H 0000000 ZZZZZZZ HHHHHHH ,..100 0 00000000000 00000000000 z 0000000000000000 mM oooooooooooooooo ~ ~. ~ o~ <~ HHHHH 0 DDDDD iooooo ~ H ooooo ~ ~ ooooo U © ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 t~ q~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O~ {" ~' ~' P' {~ ~, ~0 ~0 H 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ) ~00 ~ ~ ~ 00000 00000 00000 ooooo 0 o~ oo~o Z ooo~o h m H ~ 0~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X O X ~ ~ ~ HH~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H H u u~ o H ,~ ~ U HH ~U Z u: 0 ~- · O~ u . o > I OH~OO~O~OH~O0~O~O0000~ ~ OVVO~OH~OHH~~O~O~ 0 ~1 ~ LN Cclw J. ~ O O OOOOO H Z O O OOOOO ~ h o O OOOOO ~ ~ o o ooooo O~ H ~ ~ ~~ % ~ ' © ~ 0 o U H H O~O > ~ ~OOO~ o O O oo o o O OO o o O oo o O o oo H H H r-I~l i" P' P- O O I OHHHO0 OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO i" e3 ~ (:0 ~ O ~3 C,I H(N o H (N O O H ~{ o H~ O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O OO 0o0 0o0 000 O O OOOOO O O OOOOO ~ O O OOOOO D o o ooooo H 0 00000 ~ ~ 0 00000 UUUUU HHHHH H H ~~ o H o 0 o r~ o o o H 0 0 c; ~ c; o 0 0 0 00 r-I 0 H 0 . o o o 0 P- o HO e3 o ~0 0 0 0 O0 U z z > ~ 0 ~ 000000 000000 000000 o~oo~0 ~o~o~ 0~0000 H H ~ H H~ H~H H 00~ O0 oo o ,0 zo o u o O U ~ ~ ~ oo00oo o o ~ mv~ ,m~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 o ~m; o000 · U m 0 ~ OZZZZZ D Z ZO 0  " Z ~ H HHHHHH ~ ~ H~ ~ ~ Z z u ~ O~ U H Bo H~ U . 0 > o 0000 0000 0000 ~ ~ 0~~~ 0 0 00000000000 0 0 00000000000 0 0 00000000000 oo oo ~OH~ 0 ooooooo o oo0oooo o 0oooooo · oo00o~ ~o O0 OO oo ooom oooo oooo oo~o ~0~ 00~0 HH~H 0000 0000 HHHH H~ H ~H~ ~'0 0~ 4~> 0 0 00000 00000 0 0 00000 00000 0 0 00000 00000 0 0 00000 00000 0 ~ H~O00.~O~O~ ~ O OO~HO~O~O 0 0 O0~~OHO ~0~ OO oo . . oo 0~ . o ©© ~o ~1~o > 0 0000000 0 0000000 0 0000000 O ~0000~0 0 OOO~OH ~o~o oo~o0~ ¢IH H f~ 12 H ~oo~0o~ ~00~0~ o o o o o o 0 ~ o . ~ o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 · o ~0 .o ,~ . OH 0{~ ~DO ~ ~% ~DDDDDDDDDDD 0~ % ~ ~B ~00000000000 ~ ~ 0 0 D D 0~ U o~ ~U ~O OH O~ BO 0 H >~ ~0 U . > © ~0~ 000000 000000 000000 0 000000000000000000 O0 0 000000000000000000 O0 0 000000000000000000 O0 top- oo oo oo c~u3 oo O0 oo OO OO OO ~-r'- o~o~ O0 ~o~ 000o0o 00o000 o00ooo ~O~O~O ~O~O~O HOHO~O 000000 ooo~ ~ 000000000000000000 O0 O0 HO O0 0 00000~ 0 000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000 0 000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000 o ~~~~~ 4~ oo ~ o~ o 0~0o0o o ooooooo0oo0ooooooo oo ~ o~ ~ ~ o0oo0o ~ ~~oo~o~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ooo~ ~ ~0~00~0~~0 ~0 ~0 O0 O0 0 000~00 0 ~' 0000 U3000000~ kO R- 0000 ~ i" ~' H U30U3 000 000 (N O~CO~O~ 0 CO 0000 ~ 000000 ~ G:) 000005 u3(N~ O~ CO r,. O0~C~ 000 O~ ................... ~; ..... ~;., ~'.~ ........ 0~ H H H 1,0 i-I tN H (N H ~ 03 H 03 (*) ~ H p. F~ C0 ~1 t'NN~ H~ UgUg0 H 0 H U HO Ox co ~o ak] 0 O~~ U ~mmm ~ m oo o ~ ~× ~oooooo ~z ~ o o HHHHHNHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~HHNHHHHHHHHHNHHNHH o  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O H Z 0 O O O O O O O OOO ~ H O 0 O O O 0 0 0 OOO ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ~o ~ . > H O 0 u0 > o H 0~ o H H o 0 0 oo o 0 o oo 0 o o oo fi- ~- fi- ~ ~ m~m~o~ o o ooooooooo o o ooooooooo o o ooooooooo ooooooooo ooooooooo ooo0o0000 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 OO o 0 o 0 oo H . O1-,3 OO . . OO OO o omooooom~ o ooooooooo o ooooooooo ~HOOO~H ~ 4 o00~0o . ......... 0 ~ 000000000 0 ~ 000000000 XX O U ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 00~ ~ ~ 0 ~H~ ~ ~ ~0000~0~ 0 ~ H~ Z ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o o oov~ ~ ~ o ~ H ~ HO~O~OO~O ~ ~ ~b ~ ~ .... j g~j ' ; ' ..j j .............. · U ~ B ~ Z 0 v O O ~U m ~ ~ D ~ m x > m > m D> x ; m ~ m ~ 0~ z~ o~ m~ m ~o ~H ~ ~O Z~m mm H H H" H ~l ~ ~ H ~ H O~ U' HZH ~ Z~ 0 m ~ D D ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O~ ~ H ~o H03 O , > 0000 0000 0000 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0 ~mO 00000 00000 00000 O0 00000 00000 ~HO 0o0 o00 o0o ~-~- oo OO oo ~-~- 00o 0o0 oo0 00o o00 00o 0o0 o00 oo0 >>> 0~ o00o0 00o00 0o000 oooo oo00 oooo ~0o OO~N ~0~ ~0~ ~00~ 00000 0 00000 00000 0 00000 00000 0 00000 ~OOOO O OOOOH O~HO~ ~ HHHHO ~oo~o o oooo~ ~oo0o o oooo~ H Z~HH ZHHHH H ~ HH~ H~ ~ ~ ~ HHH ~ ~ mmm~oO 1"040 o o o , o o ~ ZH~O H OO~O oo0 ooo . . , ooo · . , ooo . . 0 ooo ooo oo~ o0~ ~00 H~ oo O0 OO · . oo o o ©© OO 000 , , ooo 000 o00 HHH ~0 ZZZZ ~> 000 00o 0oo . ~o ZZZ~ 000 ~Z ~> ~00 ~00 ~00 o000 0~ .o0~ OO OO O~ZEZ ~ 0000 ~0~ ~ o0o0 ~0~ z~ mzz z ~UHH zzz ooo UUU 000 ~ zzz oo0 o o o H HHHH I~DDDD >> mozzzz m HHHH H ~o U ' © > o Z 00000000000000000000000000 000 H OOOO00000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO 0OO ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO ~3 LO ,~ ~- %0 (0 ,~U3 0~ ~- 0~ O O O ~ O ~ '~ C9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O OO O O O z z D 0 o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~OO OOO , ,, HHHHHHHHHHNHNHHHHHHHHHHHHH~ UHU~ ~H~ U UUUUUUUUU o O O o o o , o m o o o O o , o ~- o 00 o L~ O O O O OO O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O OO O O O ~ O O O Oo O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · O o d o ~ ~o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ · ~ O H ~ H ~ OH H ~ O · , , . , ; o o o o~ o o o O o o O~ O O O H D ~ DD ~ D Z ~ m N H ~ HH0 N H 0 H m u ~ uu~ m u D H ~ H ~Z H ~ H U Ox w ~o 0~0 HZ d ~D~ Z~ UN %~% 0Z H ~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~ > H ~o U ' > oo oo oo (DO ov OO oo oo oo oo oo oo O0 I I o~o~ coco OH oo oo oo OH~m~ OO00OOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 00000000 ~000000 OOOOOOO0 OOOOOOOO O0000000 OO OO OO OO i,,.i~ · I" C0 OO0 OOO OOO ~0~ OO00 O000 0OOO OOOO OOH~ IIII HHHH O0 oo oo oo oo OO . , oo . . oo UU HH >> ,~o oo oo , o ©© ©© · ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 o~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 O0 ~ ~ ~ · 0 O0 ...... .. HO 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ O~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ---- . . . . . . ~ oo o o o o o ~ O0 H ~ 0 0 u ~ 0 ~0 ~ ~ Z Z M 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ H 0 ~ ~ ooz ~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ o oooooooo OO 0oo0000o oo 000o000o OO 00~0000 ~ ~00~ ~ o0~o0oo oo oo~oooo oo MH HHmmMHHH0 HMO OUNHOUUU~ U U U U U UUU 0 O ~~H~ ~ 0 0 ~~00~ ~ o~ o~ o o o ooo ~HHZ o~ o~ ooo0 o00o oo00 o~ o~ ~000 ~0 ~mm~O HHHM~ (',IN O0 O0 · . oo o o O0 O0 . . H ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ m~ O0 ~ Om bOO ~ ~ ~ ~0 m O0 ZZ · ~ ~0 ~0 m m ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~00 0 m 00 ~o O~EE ,HHHH o~ U ~DDDD ~ HHMM .D oo00 O0 H ~0 U ' 0 > o 0 00000000000 000 0 00000000000 000 0 00000000000 000 ~ooo~ 0000000 0000000 H~O000 0 0000000000 0 0000000000 0 0000000000 Or~ ~0 ~ O~ 03 ~ O~ O1 O~ ~ ~ 0 O0 0 0 0 0 ~ O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 000 0000000000 000 0000000000 000 ~HH~~ 000 ~0~~0000 ~oooooooooo 0..0,0.00.0 . ~0~~0000 0~0 ~~0~ 000 ~ MN ~HHH HHH 0 ~ ~ ~~ 0 ~ H HOHHHHNH000~ ~ 0o~ o~ 0000 O0 0000 O0 0000 O0 0000 O0 HHHO.O0 O00~H~ O~OH~H 0000~00 0~0~ HHHH~HH U~U~~ u ~zo~t~~~ o° o ou~ ~u u 00~HH ~NHHHHHH ~0000000 HHHHHHH MHH HH HHM ~ 0 ~ DDD DD DDD ~ ~~ Z~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~U ~O o O0 ~ m ~ ~oo Hm ~m ~ M o o o o > > H ~O~ ~O~0 OHO~ OOOO OOOO 000 ooo ooo I ~0~ 0 '~ ('-,I ooo ~ ~ ~ 000 ~ ~ 0 0 0000 HHH 0 0000 O O OOOO OOO O O000 0 0 0000 000 0 0000 ~ ~ ~ 00~o oo oo oo OOHO oooo oooo oooo oooo ~o00 ~H~O~ ooo ooo o o ooo0 ooo o OHO0 0 o o0oo 0oo 0 o00o 0 o o0oo ooo 0 oooo o o oooo ooo o 0ooo 0 o ~ 0oo 0 ~OOH 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0~0~ ~ ; oooo ooo ; ~oo~ ~ ~ HHH ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ Z 0 Z U b~ ~ ~ O0~Ob 0000 0 0~0 H~ ~ O0~b 0000 ~ 0~ O0 OO oo , 0 oo ~0 U~ mO COHO U Z~ ~ Z " Z ~UO HO ~ 0~ ~ ~ u ~ ZD 0 l~X OH H ~H ~10 H ~ 0 H X 0 o~ · O~ U . > o~ u ~,~ Z H.. 0 MO .. ~: ~n U ~ 0'-. ~; O000~O~O~qCOOLNO~OOt~["-O~NOOOO~N ~ O0~O,')~.l{".O~H~r".l"-~O~O~O0('.lO~ 0 Z U ~ 0 O 0 ~ I H O I"' 0~ ~ H ~9 O O 00 ~~O OOOOOOOH OOOOOOO0 O00000OO OOOO00OO O 0 O O O O O O H O O O 0 OO O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O0 I I H 0 ~0 I H 0~0~ O~ ~3 ~ i"' ~3 O (;0 I I O O ~ O 0 ~ OOOOOOOO 0 O 0 O O OO OOOOOOOO ~ O O 0 O O OO OOOO0000 ~ 0 · ~ ~ o ~o ~~oo ~ ~ o o ~ o~ oo~oo~ ~ ; ; o o ~ ;; oooooo~o ~ D 0 0 ~ 0 ~ O0 ~O~O~HO · ~ H ~ ~ H U ~ O ~ H H U ~ ~ ~ NHHHHHZH ~ H O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 OO O 0 O O O O O O O O O O OO 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O O O OO ; ; o o o o o ® ~ o o o o 0 H 00 0 ~ 0 0 H kO 0 0 (q 0 O0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~OO ~mmmmmmmm ~H > ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~m u m~ ~ u~ HO ~H U o~ ~H H Z~ ~ ~ ~00000000 ~ 0 ~ Nu Z~ O~ Z~ ~ Z~ ~ H~ ~ ~ ~ u~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ · · ~ · · ~ ~ ~ ~ · · u u u u H ~o rj . > © 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 oo 00o 00o oo oo OO ~ ooooooo oooooo ooo o~o~~o~~o~o~ ~ ~ ~ o~ O0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ H 0000000000000000000000000 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 000 000 000 0~ 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 000 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 000 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 000 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 H~ o o ~ ~o ~ ~oo o O ~HOH~HHHHH~H~H~HOOHHHHH 0 HHH H H H ~ H ~HH H ~ ~OHOOOOOOO~OOOOONNO0000 H 000 O 0 0 OO O 000 0 , ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , , , ,, ,,, , o ooooo~ooooooo~o~o~ooooo o ~ o o ~ oo ~ ooo o ~ oo~o~oooo~oo~o~oo~o o ~ ~ o ~ oo ~ ooo o 0 o o , (N o 0 o o © ~ H ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ U U O ~UU U H M H ~ 0HH ooooooooooooooooooooooooo ii !i U OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~D ~0 z ~ o U U U ~U uZ~ zo ~ ~0~ mOH o z 0 ~ ~ uz ~ · ~0 ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ xx OX ~Z 0~ ~ ~ 0~ O~ o ozz 8B H ~: 0 0 0 0 O0 k: H 0 0 0 0 O0 ~ ~ O O o O oo O~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O H~3 U , > 0 I u3 OO H H ~ OO ~ ~ · v~ ~OH~ o 0 o oo oooooooo o 0 0 oo o0ooo00o o 0 o oo oo0oo00o N P- ,~ o 0 o oo o o o OO o o 0 O0 r- p- ~- r~p- OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO P-CO O0 O0 O0 ,~ O0 O0 00000000 00000000 00000000 O00HO0~O ~OH~O~ 00000~00 OOOOOO~H ooooo~oo ooooo~o o 0 o o o o o o o . o ~ ,~ o3 10 oo 0 o 0 (DC) 0 ~ 0 . . ~ 0 (% ~r~ o o H o~0oo o ooooo o ooooo o oo0~ o ~~ O0 ~ , ~4~ oo . ooooo 44 ° 0~0~ ~ ~ oooom mm o U ~ D ~ ~ m O 0 ~0  D OUOOO m ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z M Z H ~ U OO~ ZZZZZ O ~ ~ ~ H ~Hm HHHHH ~ m ~ l" i"' I" r" 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 © 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 H m (',1 (',1 I" I"' ~ O0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 O0 ('t 0 O0 ~ t" ~ ~lt-I 0 ~, O0 oo o ~ ~H 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 o o o o 0 0 o ~ o Z . ~ o 0 O .,-'1 0 :~ z X u h [~ H ~ 0 0 0 H ~. ~ ~ ~H H D w H~I O0 oo oo · 0 ~3o I~H 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 H 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 ~ o H oo ~H o ~ . O0 , H ~ ~ 0 ~ O0 O0 0 0 U ,, Z % ~0~ 0 ~ HO iH H H~ ~o ~u H [~o O ' > © (DO O0 O0 O0 Cqr'- O0 ,.-{H t I oo oo O O OOOOOOOO00000OOH~HHHHHHHHHH~HHHH~H~HH H~ H ~ O ~ O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO O O O O O0 oo ~ oo Z ' ' D 0 U '' o~ ~ .. Z oo ~ D oo .H 0 Z e 0 H H ~ H u i ~ ~>o 0 za> U ooo ooo · , . O o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oo o o O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oo o o o o o ooooooooooooooooooo0ooooooooooooooooooooo oo O o o o ~ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOo oo o o o o o o~~o~o~~ooooo~o~ooooo~ooooo~oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o , .....,.,,....,,..,.0..........0..,.0..,.. .. · . , O ~OOOOOO~OOOO~OOOOOO~OO~OOOOO~OOOO~OO~OOO OO O O O O O ~OOO~OO~HH~OOOOOO~OO~O~OOO~OOOO~O~O~ OO O O O O  C~ O r' O C0 CO O · ~ ZH Zm~ H~ ~ 0 UH > Z Z U > z ~ UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUOUUOUUUUOUOUUUUOUUUU HM~H~HH~HH~HHHHHHHH~MHHHHHH~HHHHHHHH~HHHH NZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ m00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~ z 00 0 OU ~ 0 ~ U H ~ ~H ~HH ~ ~ . ~ ~D 0 u> om >> Zm ~ ZM Om H ~O U ' > ~0~ 00000 00000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD H~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO~OH~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO ~HHOHHOOOHOMHONOOO~HHN~N,HH~ HOO~OOH~OmOOHH~N~OOHN~OHMMHH O00000000~H~OH~H~O000~O~~ zo m H H E.] DDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDm [gm DD o oooooo~ooooooo~o~ oo o ooooooooooooooooo oo o ooooooooooooooooo oo o ooo~oooooooo~oo~o oo ~ ~00~0000~0000~000 O0 ~ ~0~0~~0~0 ~ O OOONOOOOOOOO~OO~O OO 0 ~0~0~~0~0 O~ z m 0 o H HHHZHH HHHHH~H ~ Z~ ~ z ~ z ~z~ ~ Z ~ 0 0~B~ NH ~ZZZZZ UHHHHH H~~ > m ~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUOUUUUUUUU HHHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH mDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D UU HH >> ~zz ooo H · ~0~~ ~0 Z 00000000000 ~ H 00000000000 O0 ~ 00000000000 O0 o 00000000000  UUUUUUUUUUU O~ O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 000 000 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 000 000 0 0 mo Z 0 U O 00000000000 00000000000 O0 ~ 00000000000 O0 ~ ~ON~O~HO00 OH 0 00~00~0~ oooooooo~o ~o ooo~~o ....,0,0... ooooooo~o~ oo oooo00~o oo ~0 H Z Z o O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 ~ 0 ~ O0 ~0 0 0 ~ oo o ~ oo ~0 o H ~ H ~z ~ z oo ~H ~ H HH mm0 ~m0 ~> · ~ OO oo oo o o ©© oo oo oo . . oo · . ,-IO ou') Orl oo OO oo . . oo ~o . .o oo~ o0~ ~0~ U 0x UH HHHHHHHHHHH Z Z ~ ~ H~ ~0 HHHHHHHHH 0 0 OH ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ u~ ~ 00~ -o ~z ~oo~ H ~o U > 0 H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 r~ u~ o 00 H,-'I o~ H N oo 0ooo00oo o oo00oooo 0 0oo000oo OHiO 0000~ 0 H~O000 HHHHHHHH O/ O~ 00~000 (DO0 o o HOHH,H ,-iH 0 0 00000 O0 0 0 00000 O0 oo OO OO O Z O ~ ~ ~H ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 zz 0 o O 0~ ~ o r~ ~ o 0oo O OOOOOOO O OOOOOOO O O000000 o0ooo0o HO~O000. 0 ~ ~H~H ~ HHHHHHH~ o o ~H~0 o o 0o00o 0 0 o 0OO00 0 o o ooooo o ~ ~ ~~ ~ oo ~ ...... O0 4 ~ OOHO0 ---- · o o ~o~ ~ o ~ 0 ~0~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ooo~o ~ o o z M 0 ~ m Z ~ ~ H HHH ~ m B ~ o o OO O0 oo · . oo . . HH H~ OO DUO ZH OHH H~ H~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ o o D ~ o o O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U . > *~ ~ 0 0 ~o ~ o o o o ~ o o Z 0 u~ rq ~ . ~ D H o D . 0 ~0 o · O~ H ~0 U ' > ~ 0 © -H 0 o o~ , 0 ~ ~ ZH H(',I O~ ~o O , o > H ~u~m~u Dm~mH~ ~ O~>~Z HI ~ o~oooo~o~o~oo~o~o~oooooo~ ~ O~~HO~OH~~~O~OV~ 0 Z O H ~0 H~3 O ' 0 > o ~ '~ ~3(N u3~ H r- o o oo oo o O o o oo oo o o o O oo oo o o o o oo oo o o HHHHHOOOOOOOOHHHHH~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NO0 00000000000000OOOO00 O O 0 O 00000000000000000OO0 0 O 0 0 O00 00000000000000000000 0 O 0 0 000 o ~ oooooooooooooooooooo ~ ~ I m~ Nfl- OO O0 OO 0~0~ ~ 0 ~ 000 ~0 ~ ~ ~ 00o ~o o o oooo0oo00ooooo00oooo o 0 o o oo 0 o oo0oooooo0oo00oo0o00 0 0 0 0 OO o o 0oo00oo0oo00o000000o o o 0 0 oo o ~ H~HHHHO~HOH~H~HHH H O H 0 O~, ~ 0 O~O000~OO~OOHOOHHO00 0 H 0 ~ H~ ,,..,,..,..,,..,,,,. . . .0, ~ ooooooo~ooo~oo.ooooo o ~ ~ ~ ooo ~ ~o~.~~o~oo~ooooo o o o ~ o~o oo · , oo 0 000 0 000 m o O 0H ~ H.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ UZZ ZOO ~ " Z 0 O HHH NHM H~ ~ ~ O~ ~0 ~ O~ H ~o H~3 0 > o ~ ~ 0 O~H~ ~ ~0~ 0 0 0 00000000 O0 000 0 0 0 00000000 O0 000 0 0 0 00000000 O0 000 00000000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00000000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 00000000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 o~o~ oo 0 o ~ 0 0 ~ D o o 0 m Z 0 0 ~ ~ 0 O ~ 0 O > ~ o 0 m 0 0 0 00000000 O0 000 0 0 0 00~00000 O0 00© 0 0 0 00~00000 O0 000 ~ o ~ oooooooo oo ~oo 0 ~ 0 00~0000 ~ 0 0 0 00000000 O0 > 0~00000 00000000 00000000 OOHO000~ ~0~0 o000o0~0 OOHH~H~ 0o0o00~0 OOOOOOH~ oo oo O0 ©© H OHH ~ · · ~ H ~ ! 000 ~ zm mm ~m~m H H oooooooo ~ 0 0 ~ ~HHHHHHHH ~ DZ ~z~zzzzz zz uz ~OOOoOOOo ~ ~ ~ ~OO H~ H [~o H~ L) , 0 O 0000 00 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0000 O0 0 0 0000 HHHH zo 0~ O© ~0~ 00000000 00000000 00000000 O0 O0 oo 0 o00oo00o00 0 0 0 ~ 0 0o00000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000o000 0 o 0 o ~ 00000ooo00 ~ 0 ~0 0000 0000 0000 ~oo ~ o o oo0o oo o 0 ooo0 oo 0 o ~oo ~ ~ ~ 0o00 O0 0 ~ 00~0 O0 O ~ OO~O OO 0 ~ ~ 000oo m~ 0 · Z oo0oo ~ ~ ~ 00000000 00000000 00000000 HOOH~O0~ O~OM~O ~o00~ z ~ BHH HHZ z ~z z~ ~~0o~ HH~ H OO O0 OO . . oo H~O 0 OOHOH~HHO~ 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0~00000000 0 ~ 0 ~ 0~0~000000 ~ H 0 ~ 000~000000 ~ ~ 0 H~HHHH H H ~HU~UUUUHU H H Z ~ ~HHHHHh~H ~ ~ ~ o 0 o · o ~ 0 © o 0 ~ o 0o00 00o0 0o0o 0o00 0000 0000 0000 ~ O~H~OOH ~ 0 0 ~ O ~ HHHHHHHM ~ mm ~ououoouo b~~ ZOO m 0 0 0~ U ~o ~ H HHHH H I ~ I ~ ~ HHHHH o oooo o 8 I I HHHH H Hm U ' > © 00000000000000000000 0 OO 00000000000000000000 0 O0 00000000000000000000 0 O0 00000~~ oo~ o ~ 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 o 000000000000o0000000000000000 o 0 o 0 00000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000 0 ~ 00000000000000000000 0 ~ 0000~000000000000000 ~ O ........ O0 OOH~OOOOOH~O~O~O~O 0 H~ z oooooooooooooo~ooooo ~ GG ~ H HHH~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~ ~ ~ 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 ~ HH~HHO~O~HH~OH~H~HO~OO~H~ ~ ~ 0 O0000HO~OOOONOOOOO~OO~H~O00~ 0 0 ~ ~H~HH~H~H~HH~M~H~H~H H ~ ooooooo~oooo~ooooo~oo~oo>ooo ~ ~ ~ ooooooo~oooo~oooo~o~oo~o o o ~ x x x ~ m ~ · 0000000000000000000000000000 ~ ~N N~~~N~H~ONPH~H~H~O~~~~~N~ ~ ~N~ ~ ~ ~ o° O° ~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ ~ 0 8 ~ HQ O ~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ ~ 00000000000000000000000000000 ~ o o H ~0 0 , > m~~oH~m o ooooooo~ o ooooooooooo o ooooooooooo o ooooooooooo o ooooooooooo oooo oooo oooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo0oo ooooooo0o0oo0ooooooooooooooo0o0ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo00 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0 0 o o ~ 0 o ~ . 12 . U ~ oo o Z oo o ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooo oommo~o~mo oo~o~ ooooooo~oo ooooo~o~ OOOO ~0o ~oo 00~ ~00 0000 OO00 ~OO 00~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 OOOOOOOO00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00 OOOOOOOO00000OOOOOOOOOO00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 OO~~O~OO0~H~HHOOHO~~H~H~HOO~ ~O00000~O00~O000000~OHH~O0000~O0000~O0 O~OOOOOONOOOOOOOONOOOOOO~OONOO000~OOOO~OO~O0 O~~0~0~0~OOOOOO~OO~O~O00~0OOO~O~O ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 O ~ z~ ~u 0x ~o H~ ~ 0 ~ ~HHHHHHHHHHH D~ ~ OUOOUOOOUUOUUOUOOUOUUUUUOOUOUOUUUUOOOUOUUUUU ~H~H~H~HHH~HH~~~H~HHH~~ ~00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 H ~o H~ O , 0 > o 000 ooo o0o 00ooo ooo0o 000oo oo oo O0 OO 000000 0 0 0 0000 000 000000 0 0 0 0 000 000 000000 0 0 0 0 000 000 000000 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 o o mo ~OO ~00 HOO oo 00000 00000 00000 00000 OOOOO ~OHOO H HHHH~ ~D 0 0 0 © .© 000000 0 0 0 0 000 0 000000 0 0 0 0 000 0 000000 0 0 0 0 000 0 oooooo o o ~ ~ ~ ......... ~ H HHH UUUOUO ~ ~ ~ HHHHHH ~ H HHH 00 ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ~~0 ~ 4 ~ ~0 H~ U O ~0~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~00 ~~0 ~ H ~ ~ ~0~ ~00 o...... . . . .. ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~oo ~~0 ~ ~ ~00 O ~ ~ 0 ~ HH !h ~ D ~ ~0 0~ ~O H~ ~ 0~ ~ z ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ O~ ~ 0 Z ~0 ,0 H~; U Z ~x 0 U H ~o 0 , o > o 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0000 0 00 0 000 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 O0 0 · O0 ~ 0 O0 O0 0 000 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ · I I I I I I OOO 000 I I I 000 00o ooo o o I IO ~o~ I I HH 00000 00000 00000 O O H H u o HH o oo 0 O0 O~ O~ .~ O0 ~ ~m oo o O~ ~ ~ oo 0 O0 ~0 V ~ O0 00 ~ 00 OD~ HHB 00o 000 ooo ... ooo ... 00~ ~o~ ... ooo ~00 HHH ~0 U ~ ~ ~o~ o 0 OHH 000 o ~o~ ~ vo HOH o o o~ ~o o ~ 0 ~H OOo 0 ~ ~H ~ O ~ oo O0 oo · . oo . . ~0o m~o oo O0 oo · . oo . . o~ ~o o ~> 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 ~0000 0 00000 ~00 ,...0 ~0000 ~00 ~HH o H00HH~ U ~ H U H 0 H~ H~ ~ H U z o z~ ~ H H ~ H~ H h ~ ~ 0 ~0 MZZ H0 Zm o. ~ m 0 E 0 ~ H m~ ~0H HH~ ~> 0~ 0 U ~HH 0 ~ 0HHH Omm f H HHH O o~ HHHHH o HHHHH ~ ~ ~ ~ O~OO H Z O O O HOHH ~ H O O O OOOO D ~ O O O OOOO ~ O ' > ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 o00 0 0 0oo o o 000 0 o 000 ~ r~ U OOO H ~ OOO 0 m O~ ~ III ~ ~ 000 O1 0 O~ O~ 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 ~' r' P' r- 0 0 0 000~ 0 0 0 ~000 ~ 0 0 0 ~000 ~ o ~ ~ oooo · 0 0 ~00 ~ 0 0 0 0000 000 000 HOH OHO 000 000 ~00 I ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~H~ o 0 ~m~ ~ · 0 ~  0 ZO ~ H H~ ~ Z~ ~ ~ Z~ H.. ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ O~ ZH Z ~ ~ ~x 0 ~ Z ZH ~ Z H ~0 ~ U . > ~ 0 © z o u z o r- 0 ITEM NO. 6b. DATE: January 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Deny Claims for Damages Received from Barbara Silver and John Fetzer, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF The claim from Barbara Silver was received by the City Clerk on December 18, 1995, for alleged damages from electrical power surge occurring December 6, 1995. The claim from John Fetzer, as filed by Jim Johnson, was received by the City Clerk on January 5, 1996, for alleged damages to wall heater from an electrical power surge occuring on November 5, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claims for Damages Received from Barbara Silver and John Fetzer, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by City Risk Manager. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No. N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Claimants Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk ~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Barbara Si~r and John Fetzer Claims APPROVED :~"~-~ Ca~'dace Horsley, (~ity I~lanager NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAtt, CALIFORNIA This claim must be presented, as prescribed by Parts 3 and 4 of Division 3.6, of Title 1, of the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or by a person acting on his/her behalf· City Clerk's Office City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 RETURN TO: i · · CLAIMANT ' S NAME: CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: Number/Street Post Office Box City State Zip Code Work Phone Number H6m~ Phone Number · NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE .SENT (if different than above): · · · · GENERAL' DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCJ3RRENCE (Attach additionalpages if. more space is needed)~ ~/J;w%-r) /~.~ - ~..~ . n~o~ -h,~'. ~x},.,"/- ~~_~c~/ ~n,,~c~ ~i~ ~ES. IF KNO~ OF ~N~ PUBBIC E~PBOYEES C~USING T}tD Ill~U~ O~ BOSS: · · NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES (optional): A. - B. TELEPHONE . NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DOCTORS/HOSPITALS WItERE TREATED: NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE A. Bo 10. GENERAL DESCP~IPTION OF THE LOSS, I3NJURY, OR DAMAGE SUFFERED: ii. 12. TOTALAMOUNT CLAIMED: THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages for: General damagaJ Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective special damages: Prospective. general damages: The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growiJ~g crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action. SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT ($) 19~. ' SIGNATUR~ /~'7 ~ - / NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience only, and any other type of form may be used if desired, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, we suggest that you seek legal counseling of your choice. 3: FORM~CLAIM Rev: 3/!0/95 NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA This claim must be presented, as prescribed by Parts 3 and 4 of Division 3.6, of by the cla. imallt or Title 1, of the Government Code of the State of California, ~-~?~:.~.~l~r'~ ~,..,,~, ~..~.~ , . by a person acting on his/her behalf. ..~ . .... . . RETURN TO: · · City Clerk's Office city of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 CLAIMANT' S NAME: d~L Number/Street and Post Office Box State Zip Code Home Phone Number Work Phone Number j NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if different than above): · · I DATE OF TIlE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE:. · · GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (~ttach~ addi.tiona% pages-if more space i.s ~eedDd~: NAMES, IF KNOWN, F L EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INZURY OR LOSS: · NAMES AND ADDRESSES'OF WITNESSES (optional): NAME ADDRESS A. TELEPHONE Be · NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DOCTORS/HOSPITALS WHERE TREATED: NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE A. Be 10. GENERAL DES~RX~TIO~ OF ~HE LOSS, INJ~R~ D_~M~E SUFFERED: 11. 12. TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: Damages incurred to date: Expenses for medical/hospital care: Loss of earnings: Special damages for: General damages Estimated prospective damages as far as known: Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future loss of earnings: Other prospective special damages: Prospective general damages: The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growi~,g crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action. --'. SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT (~:) y, of ~ Received in city Clerk's Office this 6~i~[~£z , NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience ly, and any other type of form may be used if desired, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. The use of this form is not intended in any way to a~lvise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are in doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, we suggest that you s,?ek legal counseling of your choice. 3:FORM\CLAIM Rev: 3110195 I I KOHN VINEYARDS Ms. Kathy McKay City Clerk's Office CITY OF UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Ms. McKay: January 4, 1996 Cff'( CLLtt,', Please excuse the the tardiness of this claim as I have been extremely busy with the clean up from the December storm..J"4~/[ The occupant of the home located at 202/N~rth Barnes Street, Ukiah, is employed as a supervisor for Pacific Gas and Electric' Company. He has alerted me to the power surge problem involving his new watbr-heater and believes the power company may be at fault. After I personally spoke with the maintenance technician who repaired the unit, we concurred that the damage to the controller occurred due to the irregularity (surge) in the power supply. Therefore, it seems only fair that the power company should bear the expense of this repair. I have enclosed the form titled "Notice of Claim against the City of Ukiah" and a copy of the bill from Redwood Heating and Cooling. Please note that John Fetzer is the legal owner of this property and any reimbursement should be ~nade payable to him personally. I appreciate your attention and prompt response regarding this matter. If you have any further questions you may contact me at 744-1641 or John Fetzer at his office telephone number (485-1293) Sincerely, KOHN VINEYARDS Jim Johnson Maintenance Supervisor/ Property Manager JJ/drw Enc. I It,Il I;1:1. ^1~.I;I~,i!5 I~OAI), RI:D\V/(.)¢)I) VAI.I. :'~, CAI.IFOI?,NIA 95,170 '" I:AX 707/.185-082() · 'I'EU-;I'I-I( ~NI'{ 7o7/4,q¢-129:-: i ITEM NO. 6c DATE: JANUARY 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE REQUIREMENT FOR VEHICLES TO STOP PRIOR TO PROCEEDING THROUGH A NARROW PORTION OF BEACON LANE Subsequent to receiving a petition from concerned citizens residing in the Beacon Lane area requesting that the City either: 1. Establish Beacon Lane as a dead-end street. 2. Widen Beacon Lane to accommodate two lanes of traffic. 3. Establish East Beacon Lane as a one-way street for east bound traffic. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Establishing the Requirement for Vehicles to Stop Prior to Proceeding through the Narrow Portion of Beacon Lane. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt resolution. . Establish narrow portion of Beacon Lane as one-way for either east bound or west bound traffic. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: Scott Lumry Linda Johnston Jeanie Malarich Requested by: Traffic Engineering Committee Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~__~ Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Site Plan showing location of narrow portion of Beacon Lane 3. Summary Report of Resident Survey 4. Resident Questionnaire/Survey APPROVED: R:IXPW:kk ABEACON '~e I2I&s-ley, City ~anager Adopt Resolution Establishing the Requirement for Vehicles to Stop Prior to Proceeding through a Narrow Portion of Beacon Lane January 17, 1996 Page 2 the Traffic Engineering Committee directed Staff to circulate a questionnaire for the purpose of obtaining the opinions and comments from all residents who reside in the affected area. Of major concern to the residents is the extremely narrow portion of Beacon Lane (approximately 11 feet) just east of Beacon Way. Currently two-way traffic is utilizing this narrow portion of roadway. Establishing Beacon Lane as a dead end street was not supported by the Committee and the options provided in the Resident Survey were: 1. Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane one-way travel for west bound traffic, or 2. Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane one-way travel for east bound traffic, or 3. Keep Beacon Lane as is. Results of the Resident Survey were submitted to the Committee on December 12, 1995; copy of the Summary Report is attached. There was no consensus amongst the residents regarding which direction of traffic would be allowed to enter the narrow portion of Beacon Lane. Recognizing that two-way traffic is not appropriate for the 11 foot wide portion of Beacon Lane, the Traffic Engineering Committee is recommending to the City Council that both east bound and west bound traffic be required to stop before proceexling through the narrow portion of Beacon Lane. An advisory sign would accompany the stop signs advising the motorists to "PROCEED WHEN CLEAR". This type of installation has been used at two locations along State Route 16 (Rumsey cutoff). Staff has learned that the south half of Beacon Lane which is within the unincorporated County area is not on the County's Maintained Road System and, therefore, concurrence from the Board of Supervisors to establish the requirement to stop is not required. RK:kk R:I~V ABEACON 1 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLIStlING TIlE REQUIREMENT FOR VEHICLES TO STOP PRIOR TO PROCEEDING TttROUGH A NARROW PORTION OF BEACON LANE WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council has received a recommendation from the Traffic Engineering Comlnittee (Traffic Engineer) that eastbound and westbound vehicles be required to stop prior to proceeding through a narrow, one lane portion of Beacon Lane located east of Beacon Way and west of South State Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 7100 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, eastbound and westbound vehicles approaching the narrow, one lane portion of Beacon Lane between Beacon Way and South State Street shall be required to stop prior to proceeding through the narrow roadway. PASSED AND ADOPTED this roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: day of , 1996, by the following ATTEST: Fred Schneiter Mayor City Clerk IhI/RF~I BEACON.X[P M.E.M.O.R.A.N.D.U.M DATE: TO: FROM: November 22, 1995 Traffic Engineering Committee Kathy Kinch, Administrative Secretary Public Works Department BEACON LANE RESIDENT SURVEY At the June 13, 1995 Traffic Engineering Committee meeting, a request was made by Scott Lumry to have Beacon Lane closed to through traffic at the east boundary of Beacon Way. The Committee made a motion to support Beacon Lane as a one-way street, and requested the Public Works Deparment send a questionnaire to all residents of record along Beacon Lane, Beacon Way, Beacon Drive and Ranee' Street asking their preference to have the one-way east or west bound. A recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their action/adoption. The questionnaire was sent to all residents in November, 1995, asking their prefere~ce to one of the choices listed below. The following is the result of the questionnaire. 3 RESPONSES Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane .one-way travel for ~vest bound traffic only. Residents would have to use Dora Street for exiting the Beacon residential area. There would be n__~o exit onto State Street. 9 RESPONSES 9 RF_SPONSES Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane one-way travel for east bound traffic only. Would permit residents to exit onto State Street from Beacon Lane. There would be n._~o entrance onto Beacon Lane from Slate Street. Keep Beacon Lane as it currently is. COMMENTS Would prefer the street closed to all traffic from State Street to Suburban Propane property line. We would like you to keep the option open for closing off the narrow portion of Beacon Lane, when and if you ever open Berkeley Way, Beacon Way, or Ranee Lane to the proposed future streets going in at the vacant lot at the end of these streets. For the present we would like one- way travel for eastbound traffic only. I rely on public transportation to get around. I walk down Beacon Lane to State Street to catch the bus. I hae never encountered any problems with vehicles going in either direction on Beacon Lane. I have on the corner of Beacon Lane and Dora. If anything is to be done on Beacon Lane it's to install speed-bumps for night time speeders this would be the most cost-efficient method to deter traffic. Dear Beacon Lane Area Resident: The City of Ukiah's Traffic Engineering Committee is seeking your opinion and comment to a request made by several residents of the Beacon Lane area, that Beacon Way be modified or made a one-way street. This request came to the City's attention by way of a petition signed by 26 residents. The petition listed three (3) options to be considered: le East Beacon Lane should be a dead end street at the property line of Suburban Propane (near the location where the road narrows), or 2. Beacon Lane be widened to accommodate two (2) lanes of traffic, or ge East Beacon Lane be designated as a one-way street for east bound traffic only (entrance onto Beacon Lane from State Street would be prohibited). The Traffic Engineering Committee does not support Option No. 1 since it would restrict multiple access to the Beacon residential area for Public Safety response vehicles (Police, Fire, and Ambulance). Option No. 2 would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way and considerable expense in improvements. The City could support this Option if the residents petitioned for an Assessment District to finance the acquisition of the rights-of-way and completion of street improvements. All costs for this Option would be born by the residents residing within the established District through property assessments. This method of financing street improvements is well established and the steps and procedures can be found in the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code). The Traffic Engineering Committee supports a modified version of Option No. 3 which would make the narrow portion of Beacon Lane east of Beacon Way a one-way street. This would facilitate convenient two-way travel for the residents living along Beacon Lane and the cross streets of Beacon Way, Berkeley Way and Ranee Lane. The narrow portion of Beacon Lane between Beacon Way and State Street would be designated one-way for either east bound or west bound traffic. The Committee would like to receive your preference as to which direction of vehicular travel would be permitted. Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane one-way travel for west bound traffic only. Residents would have to use Dora Street for exiting the Beacon residential area. There would be n__qo exit onto State Street. Make narrow portion of Beacon Lane one-way travel for east bound traffic only. Would permit residents to exit onto State Street from Beacon Lane. There would be n__o entrance onto Beacon Lane from State Street. Keep Beacon Lane as it currently is. The Committee asks that you indicate your preference to one of the choices above and return this form to City Hall by December 1, 1995. You may hand deliver to the Public Works Department at City Hall or mail to: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 ATTENTION: Rick Kennedy The Traffic Engineering Committee will forward a recommendation to City Council after their December 12th meeting when this matter will be considered. It will also be necessary to forward the recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors for their action, since the south half of Beacon Lane is within the unincorporated area of the County; the City/County boundary line is 20 feet north of the residential fences along the south side of Beacon Lane. Thank you. · ector of Public Works/City~lEng~r cc: County of Mendocino Public Works Department B:I\TEI2 LBEACON ITEM NO. 6d DATE: JANUARY 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR ONE (1) TON SUPER HEAVY DUTY TRUCK, CAB AND CHASSIS TO UKIAH FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,805 In response to the City's Request for Bids to provide a one (1) ton super heavy duty truck, cab and chassis, three (3) bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on January 9, 1996. The bid results are as follows: 1. Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Trucks $21,267.68 Two exceptions listed - tire size and no fuel tap. 2. Ukiah Ford $21,805.00 No exceptions listed. Auto Center Two exceptions listed - tire size and no fuel tap. 3. Lasher $21,943.35 CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for one (1) ton super heavy duty truck, cab and chassis to Ukiah Ford in the amount of $21,805. Acct. No.: 575-5801-275 Garage- $22,000 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Award bid to Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Truck in the amount of $21,267.68 and authorize the expenditure of approximately $400 to modify fuel system for auxiliary fuel tap. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Appropriation Requested: N/A N/A Don Denham, Garage Supervisor Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~__~__ Candace Horsley, City Manager le 2. 3. 4. 5. Bid Summary Bid from Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Truck Bid from Ukiah Ford Bid from Lasher Auto Center Specifications APPROVED: C~_nda~ Hoi'sle~, ~Ci~ty 'l~an~ger Award of Bid for One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis to Ukiah Ford in the Amount of $21,805 January 17, 1996 Page 2 Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Trucks is the low bidder, however, as noted in their bid, two (2) exceptions to the specifications were noted. The tire size exception is minor and not critical. However, the exception to the fuel tap is critical. The fuel tap was specified for the purpose of providing a secondary full line for a gas powered air compressor which will be installed on the truck by City Garage Staff. GMC does not offer auxiliary fuel taps and, should the City accept the bid from Manly Oldsmobile/GMC Trucks, it will be necessary for Staff to remove and rinse the fuel tank for the purpose of installing the auxiliary tap. The cost of this work is estimated to be $400. City Staff does not know if modification to the fuel system will void the GMC warranty. Staff is recommending that the award for the furnishing a one (1) ton heavy duty truck, cab and chassis be made to Ukiah Ford in the amount of $21,805. There are no exceptions to their bid. This vehicle will replace the existing Garage Service truck. The existing service body will be painted and installed on the new one (1) ton heavy duty truck, cab and chassis. This unit has been funded at $22,000 in the current 1995/96 Garage budget Account Number 575-5801-275. 1996 ONE (1) TON SUPER HEAVY DUTY TRUCK, CAB AND CHASSIS BIDDER UKIAH FORD LASHER AUTO MANLY OLDSMOBILE/ CENTER GMC TRUCK MAKE Ford GMC GMC BID $20,331.00 $20,460.00 $19,830.00 TAX $1,474.00 $1,483.35 $1,437.68 TOTAL $21,805.00 $21,943.35 $21,267.68 DELIVERY Approximatly 14 weeks 120 days Approximately 90 days ., EXCEPTIONS None 1. No fuel tap 1. No fuel tap 2. Tire size 2. Tire size TERMS Net 20 day *$500/20 days Net 30 days NOTE: Lasher Auto Center does not meet specifications. RHK/kk R:I ~V AFORD.UK TO: CITY of UKIAH 300 Seminary Avent~ Ukiah CA. 95482 Phone 707463-6200 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO FA~ WILL BE ACCEPTED THIS IS NOT AN ORDER MANLY OLDSMOBILE/G.M.C. TRUCKS Corby Avenue Mall Santa Rosa. CA 95401 I DATE: 12/15/95 REQ. NO. E 14708 BIDS WILL BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2:00P.M. Januar~ 9, 1996 AT THE OFFICE OF TI~ CITY CLERK 300 SEMINARY AVE. CITY of UKIAH BY: Cathy Mc. Kay QUOTATIONS ARE REQUF~TED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ALL UOTATION DEL. TO: DEL. DATE: BIDDER: BY: Phone:. DATF.~ID: TERMS: 1. RJgh! is reserved 1u rejec[ en~ ~ ~11 blcls. 2. ~ght Ii r~ ~ ~t ~ ~ un~ ~ly ~ ~ ~. 3. In ~SE ~ DEFA~T, ~ Q~ of U~ ~y ~m ~ ~ms q~ ~ ~m o~r ~r~s ~d ~d ~ ~1~ ~ ~le ~ ~y I~ ~. 4. All *u~s ~1 ~ m~u~mf~ ~e, ~ numar ~ ~~le ~. 5. T~ ~, ~, ~ive~ ~nt, ~ ~e~ ~ ~y l~Md~ly ~ ~y ~ ~ ~is of ~ ~1~ of ~ ~d. 6. A~ ~AT~S ~ST BE S~D. ~ENI~ DATE ~ TI~ ~ ~ ~i~n~ ~is~y~ ~ ~i~ ~. 7. In ~bm~ ~ ~e, ~ ve~ ~r~s ~ ~ ~p~ of ~ ~ ~ q~s _ ~ ~ Q~ of Uk~, ~ln ~ ~s ~s a ~ct. Prepared for: · Prepared by: LEE FLACH MANLY OLDS GMC HYUNDAI 2701 CORBY AVE SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-1629 Phone: (707) 545-7212 Fax: (707) 545-9620 GMC TRUCK 1996 GMC Truck 2WD Reg. Cab, HD Chassis Cab, 159.5 WB VORTEC 7400 (454 CID) V8 SFI Gas Engine EXTERIOR: White, Frost 4-Spee,1 Automatic Trans w/Overdrive INTERIOR: Gray Vinyl CODE TC31403 R9S 1SA 1SZ ZW9 CSB NQZ YF5 L29 MT1 HC7 XTN YTN R6G UL5 A52 VK3 ZY1 12 12 13V MODEL AND FACTORY OPTIONS 2WD Reg. Cab, HD Chassis Cab, 159.5 WB SL Decor Marketing Option Package 1 Marketing Option Package Discount Tire Weight Tax - Model Chassis Cab 15000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Rear Fuel Tank Delete California Emissions VORTEC 7400 (454 CID) V8 SFI Gas Engine 4-Speed Automatic Trans w/Overdrive 5.13 Rear Axle Ratio Front 225/70R 19.5F Highway Blackwall Rear 225/TOR 19.5F Highway Blackwall Air Conditioning Not Desired Radio Delete Front Bench Seat Front License Plate Bracket Solid Paint No Stripe White, Frost White, Frost Gray Vinyl Ho Stripe Color II MSRP 22,218.00 Package N/C N/C 14.40 Package N/C (3OO.OO) N/C N/C 970.00 N/C N/C N/C N/C (287.00) N/C N/C N/C N/C N/C N/C N/C N/C SUBTOTAL 22,615.40 ADJUSTMENTS 0.00 EPA City: N/A mpg DESTINATION CHARGE 615.00 EPA Highway: N/A mpg TOTAL PRICE(S) 23,230.40 These prices may not reflect the ultimate vehicle cost, in view of future manufacturer rebates, allowances, incentives, etc. Prices and specifications subject to change without notice. Federal, state and local taxes extra. The graphic printed on this report may not reflect the vehicle chosen. Revised 11/_'29/95 Page2 December 21. 1995 TO: UKIAH FORD 1170 South State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Attn: Bill Luczo CITY of UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA. 95482 Phone 707-463-6200 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO FAX WILL BE ACCEPTED THIS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE: 12/15/95 REQ. NO. E 14708 BIDS ~ BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2:00 P.M. January 9, 1996 AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 300 SEMINARY AVE. CITY of UK. IAH aY: Cathy McKay QUOTATIONS ARE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ALL QUOTATIONS SHALL BE F.O.B. UKIAH, CA. i QUANTITY DESCRIPTIO'N' UNIT PRICE TOTAl. 1 New 1996 One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis as Price: per attached City of Ukiah specifications. Sales Tax: TOTAL: ~_..I, , DEL. TO: DEL. DATE: B~DER: ~K~ T~LE: ~~*~ Phone: TERMS: 1. Right is reserved to reject any and all blcls. 2. Right Is reserved to accept separate Items unless specifically clenled by blclcler. :3. In CASE OF DEFAULT, the City of Uklah may procure tho Items quoted on from other sources and hold the original blclcler liable for any Increasecl costs. 4. All aubstitution,s shall show manulacturor*s name, catalog number and comparable specs. 5. The price, terms, delivery pelnt, and delivery date may individually or colleclNely be the I:~tsls of ~ awarding of the bid. ~. ALL OUOTATIONS MUST BE SIGNED. OPENING DATE and TIME "MUST' be prominently displayed on submitting envelope. 7. In submitting the above, the venclor agrees that the acceptance of any or all quolations by the City of Ukiah, within :30 days constitutes a contract. ......... UKIAH FORD LINCOLN - MERCURY !170 So. State St. · P. O. Box 788 · Ukiah, CA 95482 · Phone 707-468-0091 F-Super Duty 4x2 Chassis Cab Dual-Rear Wheel WHEELBASE: 136.8" wb. #1-STD 9570(2) PAYLOAD PACKAGE: MAXIMUM PAYLOAD RATING:<~) (Ibc.) 9465t3) 184.8'" wb. #1 -STD 9155{4) GVWR: (lbs.) 15,000 GAWR:~ (lbs.) Front -- Min. 5000 Rear -- Min. 1 t ,000 -- Max. 11,000 POWERTRAIN: Engine -- Application(s) Type Refer To Preferred Equipment Packages For 50 States Usage 7.5L (460 CID) EFI V-8 Transmission -- Type Heavy-Duly Manual -- Speeds 5-Speed Overdrive Clutch Diameter 12.3" AXLES: Front Axle -- Type Monobeam ~ Capadty (Rating @ Ground) 5000 lbs. Rear Axle -- Type Full-Floating, Dana ~ Capadly {Rating @ Ground) 11,000 lbs. BRAKES: Front/Rear Disc -- Type -- Size Dual-Piston, Floating Caliper 12.83' Diameter Power Assist Uni~ -- Type Hydro Boost -- Power Piston Diameter 1.56" Parking Brake (Rear Brakes) Foot-Operated, Hand Release ELECTRICAL: Allernator -- Rating 95 Amperes, 1425 Watt Battery ~ Type Malnlenance-Free -- Rating 84 Amp-hr., 850 CCA Trailer Wiring -- Type 3-Wire Bundle Harness FUEL TANK: ~ Capacity 38.0 Gal. (144 L) JACK: -- Capacity 3-3/4 Ton STEERING: -- Type Power, Ford XR-50 ~ Ratio 17.0:1 SUSPENSION: Frame ~ Type Single-Channel, Single-Channel, Single-Channel, 6-Crossmembers, 8-Crossmembers, 9-Crossmembers, 36,000 psi Steel 36,000 psi Steel 36,000 psi Steel -- Section Modulus 8.79 cu. in. 11.6 cu. in. Spdngs, Front Spdngs, Rear -- Type -- Rating @ Ground (min.) -- Type -- Rating @ Ground (min.) Leaf, Single-Stage, Constant-Rate 5OO0 lbs. Leaf, Single-Stage, Constant-Rate Main and Auxiliary 11,000 lbs. Shock Absorbers -- Gas-Type 1.38" Stabilizer Bars Front and Rear TIRES: -- Type Truck-Type Steel-Belted Radial, All-Season -- Size Six, LT235/85Rx16E WHEELS: -- Tlfpe and Size Six, lO-Hole Disc, 16' x 6.0" K Steel NOTE: Refer to U~e end of this section for Preferred Equipment Package content and opUon availability. (1) Load rating represents maximum allowable weight of people, cargo and body equipment and le reduced by optional equipment weight. 9750 lbs. with Single Fuel Tank option (Deletas 19 Gal. aft-of-axle fuel tank). IiI 9645 lbs. with Single Fuel Tank option (Deletas 19 Gal. aft-of-axle fuel tank). 9335 lbs. with Single Fuel Tank option (Deletas 19 .Gal. alt-of-axle fuel tank). Gross Axle Weight Rating is determined by the rated capacity of the minimum component of the axle system (axle, computer- selected springs, wheels, tires) of a specific vehicle. Front and rear GAWR's will, in all cases, sum to a number equal to or greater than the GVWR for the parlJcular vehicle. Maximum loaded vehicle (including passengers, equipment and payload) cannot exceed the GVW rating or GAWR (front or rear). (6) Refer to page 44 for standard equipment specifications and required equipment with optional 7.3L (444 CID) V-8 Turbo Diasel. 10-6-95 1996 F-SUPER DUTY MAJOR STANDARD EQUIPMENT EXTERIOR ' XL .,/ XLT BUMPER, FRONT -- Chrome ~ · Black rub strip CLEARANCE LIGHTS, ROOF · · GLASS, TINTED · · GRILLE -- Argent · Chrome · v' HEADLIGHTS- Aero halo~len with impact-resistant lenses · · Bdght headli~ht/parkin9 Ii,Iht bezels .v' LIGHTS- Wrap-around front pa~nlil/tum aisnal MIRRORS- Bri~lht, recreational swir~l-out MOLDINGS -- Bright windshield · · · · · · STOP LIGHT, HIGH MOUNTED w/CARGO BOX LIGHT WHEEL TRIM -- Ar~ent Steel Wheels INTERIOR cARPET --' Color-keyed .v' CARPET BACK PANEL COVER ,V' CIGARETTE LIGHTER · , COAT HOOK -- RH color-keyed · · COURTESY LIGHT- LWRH door operated DOOR TRIM -- Color-keyed with black handles and reflector ,v' Vinyl insert, storage bin and courtesy light/reflector Carpeted map pocket ,v' *FLOOR COVERING -- Black rubber mat · HEADLINER -- Color*keyed cloth HOOD RELEASE -- Inside , HORN -- Dual elecbic · INSTRUMENT PANEL -- color-keyed with ~love box, side window clemisters, four air rel~ister8 · · Black appliques · · INSTRUMENTATION -- Voltmeter, oil preSSure, temperature and fuel ~lau~les wilh indicator lishts Trip odometer LIGHTS -- Dome, Glove Box and Ashtray MIRROR- 12' day/night POWER POINT · · RADIO -- Electronic AM with digital clock and two door mounted speakers Electronic AM/FM Stereo with digital clock and four speakers SAFETY BELTS -- Color-keyed .V SCUFF PLATES -- Black SEATS -- Bench, vinyl with integral head restraints for outboard seating positions Cloth (flight bench) with power lumbar .V SEAT BACK -- Trim panel .v' STEERING WHEEL -- Black vinyl · Leather wrapped SUN VISORS -- color-keyed vinyl, includes LH retainer bend color-keyed cloth, includes RH visor minor VENT WINDOWS * * WIPERSr INTERVAL · · Unique equipment compared with column to immediate left. New for this model year. - I - Ford Division 10-6-95 1996 F-SUPER DUTY MAJOR STANDARD EQUIPMENT FUNCTIONAL ALTERNATOR AXLE, FRONT m Mono-Beam AXLE, REAR BAI t/~RY -- Maintenance Free BRAKES -- Four Wheel Disc ENGINE FUEL TANK SHOCKABSORBERS Regular Chaeele 5000# 11 ,OOO# 84 AH (850 C.C.A.)(3) Power 7.51_ EFI V-8 38 GAL. (144L)(4) HD Gas SPRINGS, FRONT 6000# SPRINGS, REAR 11,000# STEERING Power TIRES- Six TRANSMISSION WHEELS Footnote. -- (1) 130 Amp. with Diesel en~line. (2) Every F-Super Duty Stripped Chassis will be shipped with a Dunnage Box that contains the ik~ms shown in the chart below. (3) Dual 84 AH (1700 C.C.A.) Batteries with 7.3L Diesel Engine. (4) Includes (19.0 Gal. Front & 19.0 Gal. RearI Dual Fuel Tanks. (5~(itlncl. A/C Prep. Package w/compressor, condenser assy. and FEAD LT235/85Rx16E BSW Ali-Season 5-Speed Manual O/D -- HD 6.OK lO-Hole -- Six Warranty Facts Booklet Incomplete Vehicle Manual Owner's Manual Turn Signal Leve~ Labels/Decals Instrument Cluster DUNNAGE BOX CONTENTS Fuel Filler Hose/Cap Tire Warranty Book Glove Box Bag Speec_lomet_ er Cable Dual Electric Horns Headlight Switch Speed Control Vacuum Can (Motorhome Stripped Chassis _ only) Rating Plate Motorhome Stripped Chassis (2X$) 130 Amp 6000# 11,000# 72 AH (650 C.C.A.) Power 7.5L EFIV-8 75 GAL. (284L) HD Gas 6000# 11,000# Power LT215/85RxlSE BSW Ali-Season Elect. 4-Speed Auto. 6.OK lO-Hole- Seven -2- Ford Division TO: LASHER AUTO CENTER 1680 East Main Street Woodland, CA 95776 Attn: Bill Kemery CITY of UKIAH 300 Seminary Avcnu~ Ukiah CA. 95482 Phone 70%463-6200 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO FAX WILL BE ACCEPTED THIS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE: 12/15/95 ..REQ. NO. E 14708 BIDS WILL BE RECEIVED UNTIL 2:00 P.M. January 9, 1996 AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 300 SEMINARY AVE. CITY of UKIAI-I BY: C.~hy McKay QUOTATIONS ARE REQUESTED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ALL QUOTATIONS SHALL BE F.O.B. UKIAH, CA. ! i QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAl. ii 1 New 1996 One (1) Ton Super Heavy Duty Truck, Cab and Chassis as Price: per attached City of Ukiah specifications. Sales Tax: ro ; / · ,DEL. TO: DEL. DATE: !BIDDER: !TERMS: 11. Flight is reserved to reject any and all bids. 2. Flight Is reserved to accept separate Items unless specifically denied by bidder. 3. In CASE OF DEFAULT, the City of Uklah may procure the Items quoted on from othor sources and hold the original bidder liable for any Increased costs. 4. All substitutions shall show manufacturers name, catalog number and comparable specs. 5. The price, terms, delivery point, and deliver/date may individually or collectively be the basis of the awarding of the bid. 5. ALL QUOTATIONS MUST BE SIGNED. OPENING DATE and TIME 'MUST" be prominenlJy displayed on submitting envelope. 7. In submitting the above, the vendor agrees that the acceptance of any o~ all quotations by gte City of Uklah, within 30 clays constitutes a contract. 1~0 ~AST ~IN Pho~: (9t~ ~2-2a43 Pax: (916) 6~-7944 GMC TRUCK Detail Report CODE TC31403 MODEl. 2WD Re,fl. Cab, HD Chassis Cab, 159.5 WB STANDARD EQUIPMENT. POWER TEAM Engine: VORTI]C 7400 (454 CID) V8 Tra,~smission; 5-Speed Ma.nual Tran.s It. ear Axle; 4,63 Rear Axle Ratio STANDARD EQUIPMENT- EXTERIOR ~..~Z'~-~ .... ~"~ .... I~,-7-.7_-~ ..... ~. ~ ._l',r~ . · ~~ .... . .. ....... ,.~ ....... . _ ~ ~ Bttnip~r: tome frost " ' ::-- .... *~ '~ Grill~; Painted Hght arg~ H~adla~nps; Halogen sealed ~ Horn: Dual low-not~ a~ N~-not~ Min'ors: ~t.LH black b~t~-~y¢-~ Roof Markers: Fivo atn~.r roof market ~tocag~; Uaderho~ storag~ ¢ompa~me~ Tires; Six steel ~lted radial tkea Wheels; 5ix gray pahated sm¢l wheels ~eel Flares: ~eel flar~ on kont Windows: Tmtaa glass ~ all windows Wipers: hltertnjtt~m win&~e, ld wilts STANDARD EQUIPMENT. INTERIOR Armrests: RH/LH armrests A~si~t. ttandles: Passenger aid~ ¢igarett~ Lighter: . Coat Hooks: RH/LH coat hooks Cupholdefs; Two FLoor ¢overhlg: l~ttll floor color-keyeS H~adlamp Warning: Lights-on warning Headliner: ¢olor-g~yed cloth headliner I-teat~r: Heater and d~fogger Instrument Gluste/: Inols ne~l~ type Lightb~g; lncls domo, reading, courtesy Mirror: Rearview mirror Power Outlets; Two dash mounted Radio: Eieotroaicall¥ tuned AM/PM Se. at.s; Front vinyl 3-Passenger bench Steering Wheel: $imulat,d leather Sun.shades: RH/Lti oolor-keyed STANDARD EQUIPMENT- SAFETY FEATURES Brakes: ~wheel anti-l~k brak~ ' ' ~ ....... '~ ....... <~ .... ',":" ...... =:~- Door Beams; aid, door guard ~ams Li~tin8: Daytime hireling li~ta S~t Belts: Outboard sea~Ing posit!om Pagv I December 26, 1995 CITY OF UKIAH AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) TON SUPER HD TRUCK, CAB AND CHASSIS DECEMBER 1995 The City of Ukiah invites proposals for furnishing one (1) new 1996 I ton Super-HD truck, cab and chassis. The following specifications shall be considered minimum; however, bidders who feel they can supply a comparable piece of equipment that does not fully meet the detailed specifications are encouraged to submit proposals. All deviations from these specifications shall be described in the bid proposal. There will be no trade-ins involved in this bid. I TON TRUCK, CAB AND CHASSIS Rating: G.V.W. rating shall be not less than 15,000 lbs. This unit will be used in heavy-duty service requiring maximum G.V.W. rating, and all equipment which is set out in the manufacturer's printed literature as being mandatory or which is suggested in order to meet these operating conditions and comply with the stated G.V.W.R. shall be furnished. Engine: Gasoline type - 8 cylinders Displacement - 454 cubic inch minimum Frame: Wheelbase - 159.5 inch minimum Cab to axle- 84 inches Transmission: Automatic - Electronic 4 speed with overdrive Rear Axle: 11,000 lb capacity minimum with a 5.13 to I ratio Front Axle: 5,000 lb capacity minimum AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE TON SUPER-HD TRUC. K CAB AND CHASSIS -.' Pay Load: 9,325 lb capacity minimum Springs: Brakes: Front and rear to match specified pay load capacities Power-disc, front and rear Steering: Power Cooling System: Heavy duty with coolant recovery Tires: Single front, dual rear- LT 235/85R 16E - all season minimum Wheels: Drop center type Shock Absorbers: Heavy duty front and rear Cab and Accessories: Standard with HD vinyl bench seat, HD rubber floor mats Exterior Color: Standard fleet white Alternator: Heavy duty - 95 amp rating minimum Battery: 600 CCA minimum Mirrors: Below eye line rear view mirrors, left and right - approximate size 6 inches x 9 inches minimum Fuel Tank: 22 gallon minimum with a "fuel tap" to provide a fuel supply for an auxiliary engine. AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE TON SUPER-HD TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS Each bidder shall attach to his bid a complete, detailed description of the unit he proposes to furnish. All equipment catalogued as standard shall be furnished and included in purchase price of the unit. In making its selection, the City will consider all factors relating to the truck including operating performance, operator comfort and safety, service and parts availability as well as cost. The truck furnished under these specifications shall meet D.O.T., California Vehicle Code, California Emission Control Standards, and carry the standard warranty offered to the general public. Unless otherwise noted, the net price bid shall include all applicable taxes and transportation charges for delivery to the City of Ukiah equipment Garage on Airport Road. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to determine which proposal, in its opinion, will best serve the needs and requirements of the City. B:SPECIFICATIONS PICKUPS.6 AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE TON SUPER-HD TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8a(i) DATE: January 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: In late 1993, the City entered into a contract with the airport planning firm of Hodges & Shutt to prepare a Municipal Airport Master Plan. To assist in the funding for the plan, the City received a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as provided in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. In July of 1995, Hodges and Shutt submitted a Draft Master Plan Report and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The documents were distributed to all apprcF, fiate agencies, departments and reviewing bodies, and copies were made available for public review at the local library and at the City Planning Department. (continued next page) NOTE: This project is quasi-legislative in nature and does not require City Council members to visit the site prior to action on the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public headng to consider the proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and Draft Ukiah Airport Master Plan; 2) Consider the recommendations concerning consistency with the new General Plan; and 3) Adopt the attached Resolution Conceptually approving the Negative Declaration and Draft Airport Master Plan document. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not conceptually approve the Negative Declaration and Draft Airport Master Plan, and provide direction to staff. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: None Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: 1. , 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Resolution conceptually approving Negative Declaration and Municipal Airport Master Plan Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 13, 1995. Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1995. Airport Commission Minutes, dated January 9, 1996. Letter received from Hodges & Shutt, dated December 19, 1995 Negative Declaration Airport Compatibility Zone/General Plan inconsistency map Ukiah '~ Cand~tc& Horsle¥, (~B, Manager The Airport Master Plan (AMP) is a 20-year comprehensive planning study evaluating issues that impact the future of the airport facility. It examines the current status, anticipated future use, land use compatibility issues, and proposed future course of development of the Ukiah Municipal Airport. The plan contains a summary section; background and inventory information; a discussion of the role of the airport; a discussion of airfield design issues and the building area around the airfield; land use and environmental issues; a financial and implementation component; and an airport layout plan. The City Planning Commission and Airport Commission have reviewed the Draft Master Plan and are recommending that the City Council adopt the document. Their comments are summarized below. Subsequent to the City Council's adoption of a Resolution conceptually approving the Plan, it will be submitted to the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), along with a list of any anticipated changes the City intends to make pdor to formal adoption. After the ALUC completes their review and actions on the Plan, it will be scheduled for final adoption by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW On December 13, 1995, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review and consider the adequacy of Chapter 7, Land Use and Environmental Issues, which constitutes the comprehensive land use plan for the airport facility. After a lengthy discussion, they voted 4 to 1 to recommend the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and Chapter 7 of the Draft Master Plan. In formulating their recommendation, the Planning Commission considered a number of inconsistencies between the Plan's recommended Land Use Compatibility Zones, and recently adopted Land Use Designations for individual properties in the new General Plan. Subsequent to the meeting, Hodges & Shutt drafted a letter analyzing the inconsistencies, and summarizing both the staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Please refer to this letter for a detailed analysis of each inconsistency (Attachment No.3). Please also refer to the Airport Compatibility Zone/General Plan inconsistency map (Attachment No.6) la. Inconsistency No. la: Several existing high and medium density residential developments north of the airport are situated within the "BI" Land Use Compatibility Zone (Approach/Departure). According to the Master Plan, these uses are normally unacceptable in these zones. Acceptable uses include single story offices, single family homes, Iow intensity retail commercial, offices, and Iow intensity manufacturing. The Airport Master Plan concludes that this type of conflict must be resolved to insure safety in the future. It suggests the eventual conversion of the high and medium density land uses to Iow intensity industrial or commercial land uses. Staff Recommendation: Support the recommended "BI" Land Use Compatibility Zone Designation, and direct staff to initiate an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map changing the designations from "IVi3R" (medium density residential) and "HDR" (high density residential) to a commercial or industrial designation. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission did not specifically address this issue. lb. . , Inconsistency No. lb: Existing high and medium density residential developments north of the airport are situated within the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). According to the Master Plan, these uses are normally unacceptable in this zone. Acceptable uses include single story offices, single family homes, Iow intensity retail commercial, offices, and Iow intensity manufacturing. However, while the AMP identifies this conflict, it concludes that the existing high density residential land uses are not optimum, but can be considered acceptable because of their distance from the airport. Staff Recommendation: Support the conclusions contained in the AMP, and determine that the "MDR" and "HDR" General Plan Land Use designations are consistent with the AMP and appropriate for the subject properties. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Commission generally felt that high density residential uses in this area were inappropriate because of potential accident risk, but did not agree on an appropriate alternative designation. Inconsistency No. 2: A 3.26 vacant acre parcel of land situated within the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone adjacent to and south of Gobbi Street is designated as "HDR" (high density residential) in the new General Plan. Multi-family residential development is an unacceptable use in the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone. Acceptable uses include single story offices, single family homes, Iow intensity retail commercial, offices, and Iow intensity manufacturing. However, the AMP concludes that where future residential development is considered the best use for a particular property or area within the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone because of general City planning factors, high density residential development can be considered acceptable. Staff's analysis reveals this property to be ideally situated for high density development because of its close proximity to the commercial downtown, medical offices, and transit facilities. Staff Recommendation: Retain the "HDR"'(high density residential) designation because the AMP finds it to be a reasonable use, and because of its prime City core location. Planning Commission Recommendation: Again, the Commission generally felt that high density residential uses in this area were inappropriate because of potential accident risk, but did not agree on an appropriate altemative designation. Inconsistency No. 3: The Ukiah Valley Medical Center/Hospital is situated in the northern extreme of the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). The property is designated as P (Public) in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. This type of use appears to be unacceptable based upon the compatibility criteria contained in Table 7A of the Master Plan (page 7-12). Acceptable uses include single story offices, single family homes, Iow intensity retail commercial, offices, and Iow intensity manufacturing. However, after reviewing the circumstances, Hodges & Shutt have concluded that the hospital does not represent a major conflict with airport activities. They believe that it is reasonable, because the hospital is situated along the outer edge of the "B2" Land Use Compatibihty Zone, to merely adjust the Zone boundary to exclude the facility. , ! Staff Recommendation: Retain the "P" General Plan Land Use Designation because it does not represent a significant compatibility conflict. Modify the B2 zone boundary on the Master Plan Compatibility Map to exclude the hospital. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission did not specifically address this issue. Inconsistency No. 4: The Oak Manor Elementary School is situated in "C" Land Use Compatibility Zone (Common Traffic Pattem). This property is designated as P (Public) in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. Schools appear to be unacceptable based upon the compatibility criteria contained in Table 7A of the Master Plan. Normally acceptable uses include parks, playgrounds, two-story motels, residential subdivisions, intensive retail commercial, multi-family residential, and intensive manufacturing. Similar to the hospital situation, Hodges & Shutt have concluded that the school does not represent a major conflict with airport activities, and a reasonable solution is to simply modify the boundary of the C Land Use Compatibility Zone to exclude the school property. Staff Recommendation: Retain the "P" (Public) General Plan Land Use Designation for the Oak Manor Elementary School, because it is situated at the outer edge of the "C" Airport Compatibility Zone, and its importance in serving public needs. Modify the Zone "C" boundary to exclude Oak Manor Elementary School. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission did not specifically address this issue. Inconsistency No. 5: A number of parcels situated adjacent to the southwest corner of the airport property within "A" Land Use Compatibility Zone (Runway Protection Zone) are designated as Commercial in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. This land use designation is inconsistent with the "A" Land Use Compatibility Zone. Normally acceptable uses in the Zone A include aircraft tiedown aprons, pastures, field crops, vineyards, and automobile parking. The AMP concludes that at a minimum, the City should strive to acquire approach protection easements on all remaining private properties within the "A" Land Use Compatibility Zone. Staff Recommendation: Either direct staff to initiate an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to a designation consistent with the Airport Compatibility Zone OR retain the "C" (Commercial) Land Use designation and consider alternatives in the future to correct the inconsistency, such as acquisition of property or easements, and the application of airport overlay zoning. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends keeping the "C" (Commercial) General Plan Land Use designation, and to limit the uses by applying an airport overlay zoning in the future. Additional Planning Commission Recommendations: 1. Delete all references to the City having a proactive annexation policy. 2. Incorporate the recommended language from the Regional Water Quality Control Board 4 into the text of the Master Plan. CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION At their January 9, 1996 meeting, the City Airport Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Airport Master Plan with the following changes: 1. Keep runway width at 150 feet. 2. Keep option open for lengthening runway in the future. , Add multi-story office buildings, hotels, and motels to the list of unacceptable uses in the "B2" Land Use Compatibility Zone. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH CONCEPTUALLY APPROVING THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, in 1993, the City received a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration to prepare a Municipal Airport Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in 1993, the City entered into a contract with the airport planning firm of Hodges & Shutt to prepare the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and associated environmental document; and WHEREAS, in July of 1995, Hodges & Shutt submitted a Draft Master Plan report and proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and WHEREAS, the Draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was distributed and made available for public review consistent with State law and the Ukiah City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on January 17, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and Airport Commission, as well as testimony from the public. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon the findings contained in the Negative Declaration, that the implementation of the Ukiah Airport Master Plan could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. WHEREAS, with the following modifications, the City Council finds that the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan is adequate and acceptable: 1. Incorporation of the language recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board into the text of the Master Plan document. 2. Deletion of all references to the City having proactive annexation policies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Modify the "B2" zone boundary on the Master Plan Compatibility Map to exclude the hospital. 4. Modify the "C" Zone boundary on the Master Plan Compatibility Map to exclude Oak Manor Elementary School. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby conceptually approves the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and conceptually adopts the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January 1996, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING REPORT '~'~F'ND 6 a ..~~~~ ITEM: DATE: 12-13-95,, DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: December 13, 1995 City of Ukiah Planning Commission City of Ukiah Planning Department Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan City of Ukiah PROJECT SUMMARY: The City of Ukiah, with the assistance of the consulting firm of Hodges & Shutt, has prepared a Master Plan for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. It is a 20-year comprehensive planning study evaluating issues that impact the future of the airport facility. Pursuant to State Law, it includes, as Chapter 7, a "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" focusing on the land use and environmental planning issues associated with the future use of the airport facility. The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing this component of the plan and formulating a recommendation to the City Council regarding its adequacy. The City Airport Land Use Commission will advise the Council on the remaining components of the plan relating to the role, operation and design of the airport facility. The plan was distributed to each Commissioner for early review on November 3, 1995. This project is quasi-legislative in nature and does not require City Planning Commissioner's to visit the site prior to formulating a recommendation to the City Council. PROJECT LOCATION: The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located in the southern portion of the city, west of the Airport Industrial Park, east of South State Street, south of Hastings Avenue, and north of Norgard Lane. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends 1) The Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration, as amended in this report; and 2) Approve the Land Use and Environmental Issues Chapter and adopt the Airport Master Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Ukiah as Lead Agency has prepared an initial study of potential environmental impacts, and has determined that no significant environmental effects are associated with, or would result from the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public (P) ZONING DISTRICT: Manufacturing (M) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan is a comprehensive examination of the current status, anticipated future use, land use compatibility issues, and proposed future course of development of Ukiah Municipal AirporL The plan contains a summary section; background and inventory information; a discussion of the role of the airport; a discussion of airfield design issues and the building area around the airfield; land use and environmental issues; a financial and implementation component; and an airport layout plan. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed Chapter 7, Land Use and Environmental Issues, for its comprehensiveness and accuracy. It includes a discussion of noise, safety, existing land uses surrounding the airport, an analysis of existing land use plans and policies, compatibility concems, compatibility measures, recommendations, and a brief discussion of the environmental impacts of airport development. A. Land Use Compatibility Issues The primary land use compatibility issues identified in the plan are noise and safety. In terms of noise the authors of the plan have concluded that the anticipated slight increase in noise associated with the airport over the next 20 years will be canceled by the reduction in single-event noise levels resulting from conversion of the fire attack fieet from piston to turbine engines. While not deemed significant, the most widely impacted area is north of the airport. This mixed land use is overflown by two-thirds of all departing aircraft. In terms of safety, the airport has had few serious aircraft accidents over the past 15 years. Nevertheless, the plan stresses that planning for safety compatibility should be a high pdority for the community. A number of compatibility measures are recommended, including property acquisition, approach protection easements, avigation easements, facility modifications, operational policies, appropriate General Plan land use designations, development of an airport overlay zone, etc. Staff received a letter from Mr. Rudy Ught (Attachment #2), expressing a number of concerns regarding the Airport Master Plan. Only one of his points (#2) focuses on Chapter 7, Land Use and Environmental Issues. Basically, Mr. Light believes that the B2 Zone designation for the westem portion of the Airport .Park Boulevard and the Zone C designation for the eastern portion are inappropriate. He has concluded that these zones are too permissive in terms of type and intensity of future development, and would ultimately cause the closure of the airport. Altematively, he recommends that the entire Airport Industrial Park be designated B1 to limit the type and intensity of future development, and reduce the potential future density of population. In response to Mr. Light's expressed concem, staff directs the Planning Commission to page 7-20 of the plan. After carefully analyzing the safety and compatibility issue for the Airport Industrial Park, the author's were able to conclude that while the property lies within the typical airport traffic pattem, arriving and departing aircraft seldom fly over this area. However, the plan also indicates that all newly proposed development within this area should be carefully examined to ensure safety and noise compatibility. Staff believes that the Airport Industrial Park has been appropriately classified with the B2 and C zones. Additionally, the State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed both the Draft Master Plan and Negative Declaration, and has concluded that they adequately address all issues of concem. B. Consistency with 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan Staff conducted a consistency analysis of proposed project with the 1995 Ukiah Valley General Plan. The evaluation focused on the assigned General Plan Land Use Designations on properties surrounding the airport, and how they compared to the Land Use Compatibility Zones established in the Master Plan. This analysis revealed a number of inconsistencies. Attachment No. 4 shows the vacant and developed parcels within the A, B1, B2, and C zones that have incompatible General Plan Land Use Designations. Also, it is noteworthy to point out that the City Council has already been appdsed of the potential for needing to amend the recently adopted General Plan relative to their final decision on the Airport Master Plan. Inconsistency No. 1: Several existing high and medium density residential developments north of the airport are situated within the B1 Zone (Approach/Departure) and B2 Zone (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). According to the Master Plan, these uses are normally unacceptable in these zones. Inconsistency No. 2: A 3.26 vacant acre parcel of land situated within the B2 zone adjacent t~) and south of Gobbi Street is designated as HDR (High Density Residential) in the new General Plan. Multi-family residential development is an unacceptable use in the B2 Zone. Inconsistency No. 3: The Ukiah Valley Medical Center/Hospital is situated in the northem extreme of the B2 Zone (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). The property is designated as P (Public) in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. This type of use appears to be unacceptable based upon the compatibility cdteria contained in Table 7A of the Master Plan. Inconsistency No. 4: The Oak Manor Elementary School is situated in Zone C (Common Traffic Pattern). This property is designated as P (Public) in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. Schools appear to be unacceptable based upon the compatibility cdteda contained in Table 7A of the Master Plan. Inconsistency No. 5: A number of parcels situated adjacent to the southwest comer of the airport property within Zone A (Runway Protection Zone) are designated as Commercial in the Ukiah Valley General Plan. This land use designation is inconsistent with the Zone A classification (Attachment #4, Map 2) Analysis As indicated on page 7-13 of the Airport Master Plan, normally unacceptable uses should only be allowed within the delineated zones if major community objectives are served by their location and no feasible alternative locations exist. Regarding the existing inconsistent development within the B1 (ApproaclVDeparture Zone), staff is able to conclude that they should be redesignated in the General Plan to a land use category consistent with the Airport Master Plan, because of substantial risks and noise associated with Iow-flying aircraft. Regarding the existing medium density development within the B2 Zone, staff is able to conclude that the Medium Density Residential General Plan designation, is appropriate because the developments are relatively new, contain a high number of single family residences, and are primarily single story structures. Regarding the vacant land within the B2 designation that is classified as High Density Residential in the General Plan be retained for the following reasons: a. It is situated in the core of the City, dose to commercial and medical land uses. b. It is located in close proximity to transit facilities. C, There is only 66.87 acres of vacant high density residential property within the City, and removal of this acreage would diminish the dries opportunity to accomplish important housing goals. Regarding the existing hospital and elementary school, staff is able to conclude that the 'P" (Public) land use designation is appropriate, because these are exisring uses serving important community needs. Additionally, they are not close to the centerline of the runway, and are situated near the outer extreme of the B1 and C zones. Regarding the commercially designated properties within the 'A" Zone (Runway Protection Zone) located on the southwest comer of the airport property, staff is able to conclude that this designation is inappropriate, because the Master Plan indicates that structures, particularly ones that create an assemblage of people are prohibited. Additionally, this area is considered a hiah safety dsk, as well as an area with hiah noise levels. Staff Recommendations: le Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that existing inconsistent development within the B1 (Approach/Departure Zone) be redesignated in the General Plan to a land use category consistent with the A/rport Master Plan. 4 2, Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that existing medium density development within the B2 Zone be retained as Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. , Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the vacant land within the B2 designation be retained as High Density Residential in the General Plan. 1 Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends that the commercially designated properties within the "A" Zone (Runway Protection Zone), be redesignated to a land use category consistent with the Airport Master Plan. C. Environmental Issues An Initial Study of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan was prepared in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and is included as Appendix H in the Master Plan. The noise and safety-related impacts associated with future use of the airport are addressed in this environmental document. The land use compatibility measures recommended for implementation as part of the Master Plan are designed to preclude these impacts from becoming significant. Additional topics discussed in the Initial Study include earth/soils, drainage, air quality, water quality, plant life, natural resources, dsk of upset, public services, energy, and recreation. The Initial Study concludes that implementation of the Master Plan would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In response to the comments received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board concerning 15ast soil and groundwater contamination on a portion of the airport (Attachment #1), staff recommends the following language be formally added to the Initial Study/Negative Declaration: Page H-12, Item 3e, second paragraph: "Four underground storage tanks were removed from the subject site on November 9, 1989, and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was discovered in the soil and groundwater. Eight monitoring wells were installed and the site is currently under stdct monitoring by the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The site is under directives from the RWQCB to investigate and dean-up the documented release. No mitigation measures required." CONCLUSIONS: Chapter 7 of the Airport Master Plan comprehensively evaluates the land use and environmental planning issues associated with the future use of the airport facility. Noise and safety are the primary issues, and "Compatibility Zones" have been established over the area surrounding the airport property. While there are a number of existing land uses that have been assigned General Plan Land Use Designations inconsistent with the Compatibility Zones, staff is able to conclude that for the most part, the inconsistencies are minor and do not warrant General Plan Amendments. However, staff has concluded that the General Plan Land Use Designations on a few properties are inappropriate because of their location within the "Runway protection Zone" (Zone A) and "Approach/Departure Zone" (Zone B1). Overall, staff is able to conclude that Chapter 7 .Land Use and Environmental Issues is comprehensive and thoroughly evaluates the land use compatibility issues associated with the existing and future use of the airport. ATTACHMENTS: le e . Letter received from the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated November 27, 1995 Letter received from the State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, dated November 27, 1995 Letter received from Mr. Rudy Ught, dated December 1, 1995 Maps depicting parcels designated inconsistent with the Airport Master Plan. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The following personnel prepared and reviewed this Planning Report, respectively: Bob Sawyer,~nning Director 6 · ~TATE ~ CALIFORNIA - CAi IFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NORTH COAST REGION SSS0 SKYL.~NE BLVD. SUITE A SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 PHONE: (707) $7e.222o November 27, 1995 Mr. Chris Belsky State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 PETE WU.SON, Governor Subject' Chevron #8-4114/Ukiah Airport, 1415 South State, Ukiah, Case No. ITMC085 SCH//95103092 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Dear Mr. Belsky: This letter is in response to the "Notice of Completion" we received from you tbr the subject site. Four (4) underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the subject site on November O, 1989, and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was discovered in the soil and gro~ind~vater The previous UST area has since been paved with concrete and is used as an airolane parking and ~axi area. Eight (8) monitoring wells have been installed and are currently being monitored. Attached are two (2) site sketches which show the previous USTs and ~he monitoring well locations We recommend that you include these sketches in the "Master Plan" and include the following statement, "This site is under directives frc;m the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to investigate and clean up a previously documented petroleum hydrocarbon release .&nv monitoring well(s) da~naged or destroyed during construction will require repair or replacement. If any petroleum hydrocarbons are detected during subsequent work or monitoring well(s) damaged, please noti~' Marti Lyon at the RWQCB, at (707) 576-2220 and George Hynek at the Mendocino County Environmental Health Department at (707) 463-4466 as soon as possible," ' If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (707) 576-2691. Sincerely, Marti L ' Associate Engineering Geologist ML:tab/letters/airport 1.195 Enclosure CC' George Hynek, Mendocino ('ounty Environmental Health Department There.~a WisTrnm, NCRWr4. CI3 ,o .. N asphalt apron step 0 10 30 f~. t ' : concrete apron former concrete (~ fuel island , ~07.~7 ...~.,/ . .~.r-l,. .... "" ~':::L"-. ': ~ ,,"former ! ", ' pumps ! '" ", '~ 608.58 ~, wrm ' . · j - · ' ...... unoerg ounc~ -~_ :' .... :: ........ ~ £. ',.: -tora,e 'ank- '"'.." :": .... '~. ",[. \"., : ! 605.25 - o .... .."' '. :.: ........... '.:7 ';'.*former". ..-'" ..',., ..."' '. I ums '''/:' ' ~.-, . ..-' ..-'.....(' ., ~ p,.,,',. / ,. '.. .-' .,' ...."/' _607.09 ~'.: , / '"'.. , "..'"'"'. ...'""'"'2,~ ........ MW-4 "'..'".. 7%o:,~ '"'""" /";;', / ~o~ ~: / , \ 'i, / \, Apprommate ground water ~ I~\ / flow direction 605.92 605.00 \ 607.87 MW-'/ SIERRA -% % I: \ \ EXPLANATION Monitoring well Ground water elevation Ground water elevation contour, dashed where inferred. queried where uncertain B~se map after Western Geologic Resourcea. /nc. ii i Figure 6. Monitoring Well Locations and Ground Water Elevation Contour Map - June 19. 1991 - Former Chevron Aircraft Fueling Station /$84114, Ukiah. California STATE OF CALIFORNIA · BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY .... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS PROG RAM 113o K STREET - 4th FLOOR MAIL: P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-O001 TDD (916) 654-4014 FAX (916) ~7-909.1 November 27, 1995 Mr. Charlie Stump City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA 95482 PETE WILSON. Governor The City of Ukiah's Negative Declaration for the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Update; SCH# 95103092 The California Department of Transportation's Aeronautics Program has reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to those areas germane to our statutory responsibilities pursuant to CEQA. Said document appears to address all of the issues of concern to the Aeronautics Program and we have no additional comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, SANDY HESNARD Environmental Planner cc: State Clearinghouse Mendocino County ALUC I~UDOLPH LaOH~. PH.D. 29 November 1995 Ukiah Planning Commission Ukiah City Council Civic Center 300 Semi nary Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Lad i es and Gent lemen: I have recently had an opportunity to carefully review the draft of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan prepared by the firm of Hodges and Shutt. Before I get into details, ]et me tell you my qualifications and interests. I have been flying for over 15 years, have the instrument rating, and own an airplane which I keep at this airport. I served over six years on the Ukiah Airport Commission, being Chairman for three of those years. When the city revised its General Plan I headed the subcommittee which wrote the Airport Element and I was liaison to the Growth Management Steering Committee which was charged with assembling into a coherent whole the various elements. One of our most difficult jobs (and one required by state law) was to ensure that all elements were co-equal with each other, that land use conflict be avoided, and that one element could not have undue weight to the detriment of other elements. Compatibility was a word we heard over and over. As a group we also were instructed to look to the future - not next year or even five years, but to have a vision of lO to 20 years out and with that vision see what this lovely valley could be in that time~ I believe everyone associated with the project thinks we did a good job. When I started flying there were 12,000 public use airports in the United States. Today there are fewer than 7,000 of them. We have lost several in this immediate area in the last few years, for example Pearce Field at Clear Lake and Santa Rosa Air Center in Santa Rosa with its 7,000' runway. Both were lost due to development pressure, including a Wal-Mart store in the first case and high density housing in the second. Maintaining the viability of an airport as nice as the one we have here should be an ongoing priority for the city. Developers never quit. When I was on the Airport Commission we urged the city to have a new Airport Master Plan written. Nothing happened in this regard and so when the time came for the City's General Plan revision we as amateurs wrote our own, knowing that there was strong pressure to completely develop the entire Airport Industrial Park with incompatible and inimical high density commercial uses. In the Airport. Element of the General Plan Revision, we a'lso requested a new Plan, and Policy 2.5 stated, "The City shall develop an Airport Master Plan." Finally, near the end of the City's General Plan Revision I process, the city administration did move to have a new Airport Master Plan, and we were elated. As I have studied this work by Hodges and Shutt, I have mostly high praise for this firm's careful work. Their ability to discuss highly technical matters in a way anyone can understand is commendable.. With a few exceptions, they have captured the history of the airport, its use, its vitally important role in community affai, rs and the problem associated with development nearby. Their recommendations for .improvements to buildings, new hangars, acquisition of new land in the RPZ, better security, maintenance, and so forth are all sound as are their fiscal analyses. 'I would only clarify and expand and emphasize what they say regarding the role of CDF in the protection of this area. It's one thing to state that there are two S-2 bombers and one 0-2 spotter plane, and that CDF activity on average represents fewer than 500 operations per year. I'd like to emphasize to you what those operations mean. The Guntley fire (October 1995) of 2,000 acres would easily have been of double size and ignited many houses in the eastern hills of Ukiah. The Road J fire (1995) was contained and put out in the main by attack aircraft. And for those with a memory, recall that the aircraft activity during the Mendenhall fire (summer 1987) which burned over 50,000 acres was so high the airport could barely supply the fuel on a daily basis. On a few occasions ~0,000 gallons of fuel per day were used and 6,000 gallons per day were pumped routinely. All this leads logically to the two major and one minor exceptions I have with the recommendations of Hodges and Shutt. The first of these is that the firm considers the nominal runway length of 4,415' to be adequate in the future. By way of background, the FAA at one time considered the runway to have a length of 5,000' (the length of actual pavement) and had a displaced threshold 585' from the north end. It was displaced due to the proximity of Hastings Road, some overhead wires near Talmage Road and the fact the city had not acquired all the land and air rights in the RPZ. As a displaced threshold, aircraft could still use that 585' for takeoff, and aircraft did use it. Commercial development occurred on Talmage Road, and the FAA declared it a relocated threshold, and this meant that no takeoff or landing activity could occur in the 585'. This .represents a real, not a paper, loss of runway length. Those pilots who use that 585' to accelerate on their takeoff roll do so in violation of FAA regulations. In July ~992 there was a fire in Redwood Valley. It happened to be at our ranch, but as easily could have been someone else's property. CDF used its two S-2 aircraft from Ukiah, the helicopters from Howard Forest Station and severa! C- 130 aircraft from Chico. These four-engine planes had to §o clear to Santa Rosa to take on new retardant supplies because CDF felt that the runway at Ukiah was too short and the safety conditions were marginal. After the fire I spoke with CDF people in Chico and Sacramento and was told that given the conditions here it appeared best to err on the side of caution, to not land here for retardant supplies. Don Bua, the Airport Manager, also had discussions, wrote some letters and somehow pulled off a miracle. CDF did make a few trial landings with a C-130 and decided that on an as-needed basis for some emergencies, these large planes might take on new retardant here. But this is an "iffy" thing. With a longer runway and fewer obstacles, CDF would be happier about the situation. I strongly urge you all to keep open the option to extend the runway to the south, based on the need during public emergencies. My second point of difference with the Hodges and Shutt report lies in the compatibility with other land uses, particularly to the east of the airport, the area once known as Airport Industrial Park and now as "Wal-Mart and Friedman Brothers", or the "Talmage Road Traffic Jam". Refer to the proposed "Land Use Compatibility Map" (Fig. 7J, opposite page 7- 32), to the Compatibility Criteria on page 7-12, and to the discussion at the top of page 7-33. The Hodges and Shutt discussion just referred to suggests for Zone B2 north and west of the airport that, "Multiple-story offices, hotels, and motels (up to three stories and with densities not to exceed 90 people per acre) shall be considered normally acceptable within this zone. New single-family residential subdivisions shall continue to be regarded as normally unacceptable as indicated in the overall "Compatibility Criteria" table. However, where new residential development is considered the best land use for a particular area with regard to general city planning factors, high-density, multi-family residential development - because of its lower sensitivity to noise compared to single-family residential uses - shall be deemed normally acceptable. Any such residential developments shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre." Let me point out that the Table on page 7-12 shows a maximum density of no more than 60 people per acre for Bi and B2 zones, not the 90 referred to in the text. If you accept this reasoning in the B2 area north and west of the airport, you'd better be prepared to accept it in the B2 area east of and adjacent to the airport. And then be prepared to close down the airport should these "acceptable" developments occur. These uses are totally incompatible under the airport traffic area and so.near to the airport itself. In areas with the same zoning designation land uses must be consistent. As it stands, all the area In the Airport Industrial Park east of Airport Park Boulevard and some even west of it is recommended to be designated Zone C, fit for large shopping malls, theatres, and high rise office buildings. In my opinion, this is a major error on the part of Hodges and Shutt, and if allowed, will lead to the eventual closure of the airport. The Airport Element recommended that the area to the west of Airport Park Boulevard be strictly limited for uses compatible to airport operations. As an alternative, I recommend that the B1 zone be extended to the east to Highway lO1, and to encompass the entire Airport Industrial Park and the lands to its south. At north, this B1 line should continue along Highway lO1 and thence westward to State Street which is a division line in the Hodges and Shutt report. (If needed to satisfy a legal requirement, Friedman Brothers and Wal-Mart can be cut out of this zone.) In addition, the Compatibility Criteria should be changed to disallow new construction of these incompatible uses such as multiple-story offices, hotels and motels, and high density residential development. My third and final point of disagreement with the Hodges and Shutt report is with their recommendation to reduce the width of the runway from 150' to 100' Since their recommendation on page 5-11 isn't strongly worde~ ("it is suggested that thought be given to reducing the 'width of the runway to lO0 feet") my criticism is also gentle. I understand the maintenance costs are more for the wider runway, but making the change is costly, too. Just disposing of over 9,000 cubic yards of material (5,000' long by 50' wide by l' thick : 250,000 cubic feet : 9,559 cubic yards) would cost an individual over $110,O00 for the tipping fees alone to the landfill at the current rate of $12.65 per cubic yard. Even if the city doesn't charge the airport fund (which it probably wi11) there is that much less space available for other solid waste. Jack-hammering, excavation and hauling costs to the land fill no doubt will add $50,000 more. Moving.the runway lights to the relocated runway edge will cost at least $25,000 more. These costs must be weighed against the lowered future maintenance costs. The more important issue here is that there is no reason to decrease the width. As for myself I've landed on runways as narrow as 22' (and the wheels on my plane are apart) but the C-130 pilots and others of moderate size aircraft I'm sure appreciate the extra margin of the 150' width. In summary then, I urge you to reject the recommendations regarding no runway length extension, the B2 zone east of the airport and the reduction in runway width. Otherwise, I enthusiastically endorse the Hodges and Shutt Master Plan for Ukiah Municipal Airport. Very truly yours, Rudolph H. Light, Ph.D. RHL: lep ~HOOL CrTY OF L/K~./ c~c GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION High Density Residential Medium Density Residential AIRPORT EXISTING LAND USE 1 - YF, SF, C, P 2 - YF, SF, v ~ - SF, V 4 - MF E - MF, SF 6 - MF, SF 7 - SF 8 - IND 9 - SF ~ I I I I I I I These parcels are designat.<l "Commercial" in the Uldah Valley General Plan, and are situated within the "Runway Protection Zone," as shown in the Airport Master Plan. MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Cheryl Baker Eric Larson Judy Pruden Brent Smith Philip Ashiku, Chairman MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Ken Brody Don Bua Matthew Fromeberger David B. Heal A. Hunter Rudolph Light Doreen McBride Wayne McBride John McCowen Bing Wong Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Philip Ashiku at 7:02 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 8, 1995 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to approve the Minutes of November 8, 1995 as submitted, with the following corrections: Commissioner Pruden suggested the following corrections to the Minutes: Page 9. Paragraph 9, amend the last sentence to read "She asked for clarification of their purpose." Page 24. Para~aph 8, amend to read "Commissioner Pruden asked if there was a fence or anything such as a landscaping barrier that will mitigate the noise." Page 27. Para~aph 10. 5th Sentence, amend to read "In this area, we have successfully fought off transitioning residential into business." Commissioner Larson suggested the following corrections to the Minutes: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 1 Page 4, Para,apb 4, mmnd to read "A previous Use Permit Amendment to amend Use Permit 4/92- 20 to allow regular..." Page 8. Para~aph 1, amend the last sentence to read "He cannot support further expansion of the project at this location." Page 10. Paragraph 5, replace "Commission" with "Department." Page 27. Last Paragraph. 4th Sentence, replace "create" with "develop." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Pruden, and Chairman Ashiku None Commissioners Baker and Smith None COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None APPEAL PROCESS Chairman Ashiku read the Appeal Process to the audience. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for appeal is December 26, 1995. It was the consensus of the Commission to move Items 6B and 6C to the front of the agenda since it was determined they would require minimum deliberation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6B. Use Permit Application No. 95-34, as filed by The Community Development Commission, to allow the development of six residential d_uplex units (twelve total units) on two parcels that total 1.27 acres in the C-1 Light Commercial Zoning District, on property located at 148 Gibson Street. 888 N. State Street and 838a, 838b and 838c No. State Street, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 002-080-42 and 002-080-45. In a memo dated December 8, 1995, the City of Ukiah Planning Department advised the Planning Commission of the following: The Planning Commission, at its hearing on November 8, 1995, continued this project to its December 13, 1995 hearing to allow the applicants time to organize a "community outreach" meeting with persons in the surrounding neighborhoods. Due to efforts to reorganize and reassess the project, the owner/applicant of the project site has requested that this project not be heard at the scheduled meeting, and that it be rescheduled once project changes have been confumed and discussed with interested neighbors. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 2 The Planning Department recommends that the request for continuance be allowed, and that the project be continued to no certain date. Should this continuance be allowed indefinitely, the Departrmnt would provide full Public Notice of the project once a date to hear the project has been scheduled. Planning Director Robert Sawyer advised the file will be closed if the Community Development Commission is unable to determine a significant course of action. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to continue Use Permit No. 95-34, as filed by the Community Development Commission, indefinitely, pending renotification of the Public Hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Larson, Pruden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku None None None 6C. Use Permit Application No. 95-51. as filed by Friedman Bros., Inc., to allow tho construction of a 1,039 sq-are foot bakery/deli restaurant within an 80,000 square foot home improvement center located in the Airport Industrial Parl~ Planned Development, on property located at 1235 Airport Park Boulevard Assessor's Parcel Nos. 180-080-33, 34, 35, 36, Associate Planner David Lohse advised the project consists of a Use Permit to allow a 1,039 sq.ft. bakery/deli restaurant to operate in the 80,000 sq. ft. hardware store that is currently being constructed on the site. The construction of the hardware store was allowed by the City Council's approval of Use Permit g95-22 in August of this year. The proposed bakery would be located within the hardware store, along the west wall of the building. There will be an exterior door to the storage room area, but customers will be required to access the bakery through the customer entrances for the hardware store. The customer seating and serving area will be open to the rest of the store. The customer service area, which would be approximately 720 square feet in area, would have seating capacity for 20 customers. Planning staff reviewed this project to determine if it is consistent with the use and development standards required by Ordinance No. 959, which outlines such standards for the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development area. Due to the location of the proposed restaurant within the existing cornrrerc~ building, it is staffs opinion that the project complies with the applicable standards found in the ordinance, including those for: * minimum lot size coverage requirements; MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 3 minimum setbacks; building heights; signage; development integration; and parking and loading requirements. Based on this conclusion, staffrecornn~nds approval of Use Permit No. 95-51, based on the Findings listed on Page 3 of the Planning Report, and subject to Standard Conditions 1 through 9, 18, 23, and 24. Commissioner Pruden commented she had heard Schat's Bakery was the proposed bakery/deli restaurant and thought it an excellent choice. Commissioner Smith inquired regarding exterior signage. Mr. Lohse responded that any future request for exterior signs would require the amendment of Use Permit No. 95-22. Planning Director Robert Sawyer advised staff would disapprove such a proposal, citing the example of the new McDonald's located in Wal-Mart, where no exterior signage was allowed indicating the presence of the restaurant. It is the intention to primarily attract customers to the main business, and not to other businesses that may be located within the building. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:14 p.m. No one came forward with comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Larson stated he thought it a wonderful project. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carded by the following roll call vote, to approve Use Permit Application No. 95-51, as filed by Friedman Bros., Inc., to allow the construction of a 1,039 square foot bakery/deli restaurant, based on the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions. FINDINGS: The project conforms to the use requirements, development standards and design guidelines for the Airport Industrial Planned Development (Ordinance No. 959), including requirements for lot size and coverage, setbacks, building height, development integration and parking and loading requirements; MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 4 2, The project generates no significant adverse impacts, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, which, in fact, exempts such projects according to Categorical Exemption Class 1, Section 15301 (a), which exempts minor alterations to existing private structures; and 3. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed bakery/deli restaurant will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working within the neighborhood, or be detrimental to property or improvements around the site, or be harmful to the general welfare of the City, because it is a retail commercial use utilizing an existing structure, and it would be compatible with the approved uses on the project site and adjacent sites since it will allow the employees and users of the businesses located on these sites to purchase meals without leaving the industrial park. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Standard Conditions 1-9, 18, 23 and 24 Commissioners Baker, Larson, Pmden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku None None None 6A. Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan - Chapter 7, "Land Use ,~ Environmental Issues" - This Chapter constitutes the "Comprehensive Land Use Plan" for the area surrounding the airport. It identifies, discu.~ses, and advances recommendations concerning the land use compatibility and environmental issues associated with the future use of the airport facility Robert Sawyer, Planning Director, introduced David B. Heal and Ken Brody of the airport consulting firm Hodges and Shutt. He cautioned the Planning Commission to confine their review and deliberation to Chapter 7, Land Use and Environmental Issues, of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan. David Heal, Senior Consultant, Hodges and Shutt, advised his firm has been working on the Ukiah Airport Master Plan for the past year. The purpose of their presentation is three-fold: 1) To give a brief overview of the Airport Master Plan and the findings and recommendations that have come forth to this point; 2) Offer more detail regarding specific issues relative to land use and environmental concerns around the airport; and 3) Respond to questions. He introduced Ken Brody, the firm's senior airport planner, and author of the Caltrans Airport Land Use and Plamling Handbook, which is used as the source document throughout the State of California for airport land MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 5 use planning. He further stated the airport will remain the same as at present as an attractive base of operations and destination for personal and recreation aircraft as well as small to mid-size corporate and business aircraft. The California Department of Forestry's air attack mission is expected to remain. The next five to ten years will see a gradual shift towards more highly utilized, better equipped and more sophisticated general aviation aircraft. This shift will be somewhat balanced by anticipated increase in small personal, enthusiast use aircraft, such as ultralites. Also anticipated is an increase in helicopter activity. Aviation activity forecasts were developed, showing a regional decrease in every type of aircraft operation, and minimal growth over the next 15 to 20 years. In the master plan they were more optimistic in terms of Ukiah's airport. The forecast is that based aircraft will increase from the current level of 90 to 100 over the 20 year planning period, which reflects a .5% per annum increase. The operations will increase from 50,000 take-offs and landings per year to 57,000 in the 20 year time frame, reflecting a .6% increase per year. Review of the Ukiah airport infrastructure leads them to conclude the existing facilities infrastructure offers sufficient basic capacity to accommodate future based aircraft and future operations. As part of the determination of the airport's future configuration and role, they tried to determine which type of aircraft would be seen here as being most critical or largest on a regular basis, in order to determine what facilities would be appropriate. The master plan concluded that most critical are aircraft with wing spans of less than 80 feet, approach speeds of up to 121 knots, and weighing less than 30,000 pounds. Aircraft with larger wing spans, greater weight, or faster approach speeds will continue to use the Ukiah airport on a restricted basis. Appropriate airfield design and enhancements encompass six improvements to the airfield design. The same configuration of runway and taxiway will be maintained. The runway length of 4,415 feet will remain the same, as will the existing runway thresholds. They recommend the width of the runway be reduced at some point in the future from 150' to 100', to reflect the more appropriate standard for this type of airport. The visual approach aid enhancements that were recommended include a supplemental wind sock, distance-to-go markers, and the possibility of adding a visual glide slope indicator light, which was later determined unfeasible. Regarding the building design areas, they are recommending hangar space for 10 additional aircraft and renovation of the existing terminal building and designation for at least two spots for transient helicopter parking. The master plan reviewed various concepts and scenarios for CDF's continued presence at the airport, and recommended the expansion of the existing base to the west, or the construction of a new base. Nothing beyond the conceptual stage has taken place at this time. CDF funding is still questionable, and the State is reviewing CDF's future role and use of aircraft at different California airports. The plan does provide for the development of a new aircraft washrack facility. A further suggestion would be for the City to purchase the parcel of vacant land currently being used for a horse pasture should it become available on the open market. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 6 Ken Brody, Senior Airport Planner, highlighted the key points of Chapter 7 of the Ukiah Airport Master Plan, stating the Ukiah airport is at a crossroads with regards to land use compatibility over the long terr~ Development is occurring within the airport vicinity, and the City needs to take actions now to preserve the airport's long term viability. Despite these compatibility concerns, the master plan's primary intent is to focus awareness on the issues, and not to invent problems. As much as possible, the master plan tries to find a compromise between what might be the ideal in terms of land use compatibility around an airport and what is really practical for the City of Ukiah. The master plan addresses both noise and safety. Historically, noise has not been a significant issue at the airport. As the staff report notes, there is no change in the noise contours projected to occur over the 20 year time frame of the master plan. The effects of the modest increases in overall air traffic volumes indicated by the forecast are counterbalanced by a reduction in the noise level of the individual operations planned by the re-engining or ultimate replacement of the S-2 fire attack fleet. Another issue concerns the runway protection zones (RPZ's), or the areas immediately beyond the ends of the runway. These are the most critical areas in terms of land use compatibility around an airport, and the FAA strongly encourages airports to have sufficient rights to RPZ property in order to control the underlying use of the land. Control means not just limitations on the height of structures but also restrictions on the types of land uses allowed. Generally this means outright ownership of the property, although in some cases easements may suffice. With past acquisitions that the City has made, the airport now has control over the majority of the RPZ's at both ends of the runway;, nevertheless, some 17 acres remain privately owned. Another issue is the northern approach corridor to the airport. This area is where most of the difficult compatibility issues exist. It is a vital area with regard to the airport's noise and safety compatibility and also encompasses much of the core area of the City. The greatest concern identified in that area is over density of development. There is a need to avoid large concentrations of people within that area. It is best to avoid single family residences because of the noise impacts. There were no major concerns identified within the southern approach corridor east of the freeway and generally elsewhere within the overall traffic pattern. As specific development proposals come forward in any of these other areas, it will be important to take into account the actual flight tracks of where aircraft fly, and well as some data that is in the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. which gives some of the patterns where airport accidents have tended to occur in general aviation airports across the country. The final concern noted in the master plan is the need for protection of the ak space around the airport, and the potential in that regard for future development of high-rise buildings within the core area of the City north of the airport. Considered also should be the potential for tall trees or antennas on some of the high terrain that exists both south and northeast of the airport, although most of that exists outside of the City's jurisdiction. Any excessively tall objects in those areas could have an adverse implication on the operation of the airport. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 7 With respect to compatibility rreasures to address these particular concems, the master plan identifies four distinct categories of actions that can be taken. These include: 1) actions the City can take as owners of the airport; 2) actions the City can take as the agency having the land use jurisdiction around the airport; 3) actions the City can recommend to the County that they take with regard to the land use which is within their jurisdiction (the unincorporated areas); and 4) actions the City can recommend the Airport Land Use Commission for Mendocino County should take. The most direct and powerful types of compatibility actions fall into the category of those the City can take as owner of the airport. One of these is property acquisition, which provides the most absolute means of controlling land uses around the airport. Acquisition can be in the form of fee title or easements. The master plan notes two different types of easements. The first is the typical avigation easement, which deals with the issues of noise generated and the limiting of heights of objects. The second is the approach protection easements, where they add to the typical avigation easement actual acquisition of some of the development rights to the property, in order to restrict the uses that are allowed on that property. The master plan recommends acquisition of approach protection easements on land within and adjacent to the runway protection zones at each end of the runway. Two other forms of actions the City could take as owner of the airport include modification of airport facilities, such as the relocation of the runway end that was done some years ago at the northern end of the runway, thus bringing more of the runway protection zone into City controlled property, and the establishment of operational policies. Some are already in place but could be refined, and some are noted for future consideration. City land use actions fall into three categories. The most important is the designation of compatible land uses through the general plan and zoning process. Secondly, the adoption of an airport overlay zone is an action the City could take. An airport overlay zone can address several types of specific airport compatibility issues, i.e. height limits on objects, development density limitations, prohibited land uses, as well as noise attenuation requirements in areas that may be just off the ends of the runway. This type of overlay zone would function as other overlay zones do, in essence modifying the standard criteria of the underlying zone. The third form of City land use action recommended in the plan is the establishment of a buyer awareness program. There are three components to such a program; an avigation easement dedication, recording of deed notices, and the formalization of a real estate disclosure requirements that already exist under state law. Some of the specifics of such a program can be implemented through an airport overlay zone. With respect to recommendations to the County, the master plan basically says that such recommendations of actions the County should take shall fall under the same categories mentioned for the City, i.e. designation of airport compatible land uses, the adoption of an airport overlay zone, and the establishment of a buyer awareness program. The last set of actions are the recornrnendations to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission is really an autonomous agency which operates under the auspices of the county Planning Department. It was created under the provisions of the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 8 state aeronautics law. In 1993 the ALUC adopted a compatibility plan for the other five public use airports in the county. Ukiah Municipal Airport was not included at that time in anticipation of the current master plan being prepared. There were several discussions with county ALUC staff during the development of the land use recommendations in the master plan, and how they should be formulated. They strongly recommended a preference for amending the plan they already had to add appropriate policies for Ukiah as opposed to developing a completely separate plan for the Uldah airport. The master plan's recommendations on land use are therefore structured with that approach in mind. The policy section of this airport land use plan is set forth in two chapters. The second chapter lists the set of criteria and review policies that apply to all the airports in the county. The third chapter includes a compatibility map and a set of airport specific policies for each of the individual airports. These supplement or modify the overall county-wide policies. The draft airport master plan's recommendations to the Airport Land Use Commission contain the same two components. The proposed compatibility map for Ukiah Municipal Airport is the map before you [enlarged on the wall], and is also in the plan. The specific policies that are recommended are proposed mostly with regard to changes or modifications to the compatibility criteria that are in the original plan. The table as it was reproduced in the draft master plan was mislabeled, which has led to some confusion. It is on Page 7-12, with a subtitle of"Ukiah Municipal Airport." That table, as shown there, is out of the airport land use plan. The subtitle should read "Mendocino County Airport Use Plan," rather than it being a recommended plan for the county. There are recommended changes to that elsewhere in the master plan. .Commissioner .Pruden clarified that this table is not then necessarily a recommendation as to the zones or what should occur in them. Mr. Brody replied the table was only a structure. Some of it applies, but later on in pages 7-22 and 7-23 of the airport master plan report, it then stipulates the specific and individual policies that would apply to Ukiah airport, and modifies sorre, but not all, of the policies in the county-wide compatibility table. They started with the overall policies that apply throughout the county, and then where it was necessary within that structure, adjustments were made. The proposed modifications on Pages 7-32 and 7-33 actually deal with reflecting the existing land uses around the airport, primarily north of the airport. If the county-wide policies as indicated in that table were to be applied with a standard sort of map that was developed for the other airports, there would be a variety of nonconforming uses which would conflict. If the ALUC would act accordingly and leave the City with having to override ALUC actions, it becomes problematical. They are striving to find compromises to meet overall compatibility objectives that still work for the City. Some of these adjusUnents are to allow somewhat higher densities. The inconsistency conflicts can be avoided but still provide a reasonable amount of compatibility. The City staff report lists several inconsistencies between the recently adopted city General Plan and recommended ALUC criteria. Point No. 1 concerned high/medium density residential uses in the B-1 and B-2 zones north of the airport. Staff recommended changing the General Plan with regard to residential uses in the B-1 zone portion closest to the end of the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 9 runway. They agree with that particular conclusion. In the B-2 zone staff recommends keeping the existing General Plan designations, and they agreed, noting it was addressed in the draft master plan on Page 33, where they suggested the specific modifications to the ALUC's policies applying to that area that would allow somewhat higher densities for non-residential use. If residential is necessary, then that would be more appropriate than single family residential, again because of the lower sensitivity to the noise. They recommended density be no greater than 30 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the City high density zoning of 28 units per acre. For clarity, the modified zone should be noted that it differs from the ALUC policy called the B-2 asterisk zone in that area to the north. That inconsistency has already been addressed in the recommendations in the draft master plan, and so there appears to be no remaining conflict, assuming the ALUC adopts the changes. The second inconsistency in staffs report involved an undeveloped parcel, and the resolution would be the same in terms of the B-2 zone. Inconsistencies 3 and 4 involve the Ukiah Valley Medical Center and Oak Manor Elementary School. Staff recommended these uses remain as designated in the General Plan. However, doing that without any further actions leaves an inconsistency with ALUC policies, leaving that whole situation with potential need for override. Both of those uses are fight on the edge of the outer boundary of the referral area. Two options could be taken. One option is to put another refinement to the criteria. The easier one is to make a slight adjustment to the boundaries. That would simplify that particular problem and eliminate those two existing uses as conflicts. The final inconsistency had to do with property along the southem RPZ, along the edge of the runway, which is currently zoned for commercial. The staff recommended that the General Plan designations there be changed. They concur with that recommendation, and further note the master plan proposes acquisition of easements on that property which would also restrict the underlying use as well. Commissioner Pruden commented the City Council participated in purchasing air in an RPZ zone, and stated she doesn't fully understand the mechanism relative to that process. She asked if air rights and avigation easements are land use issues. Mr. Brody stated an avigation easement is a fairly standard concept used in many airports in that in that there is a set of fights that are acquired as in other type of easements. These include the right to overfly the property, the fight to generate noise as an aircraft passes over, the fight to limit the height of the uses on that property, and the fight to enter the property to U-im trees. One of the shortcomings of standard avigation easements is that they do not restrict the underlying use of the land. The owner of the property can establish a shopping center or a day care center which may be in conflict for noise and safety reasons with akport activity. That is the reason for recommending that where easements are acquired, the easements take it a step further and actually purchase the development rights of the property, or at least restrict the land use. On vacant property, it is simpler MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 10 to purchase the land and then lease the property, in which case the lease would govem the restrictions and use on the property. It depends on the particular parcel and the negotiations between the City, the individual property owners and the FAA, since they get involved because of funding. Commissioner Baker commented regarding the airport map and the noise impacts, stating her own observations are that the aircraft are veering on take-off to the east toward the Oak Manor property. Tankers are a wonderful thing to have in the community, but are a safety concern. She asked why one map should show this noise zone of the flight pattern, but the other map does not show it as a concern. Mr. Brody replied the existing noise contours in the fold-out in the master plan that shows the peak fire attack day were developed by another consultant to the City several years ago. They are questioning whether aircraft really are making the turn that goes well over the top of the school as that particular contour shows. They are suggesting the City refine its policies in terms of regulation of aircraft operations and recommend that traffic not turn in that particular area and avoid overflying the school. If that action would be taken, it would reduce that particular concern. Discussion followed relative to where the aircraft actually mm in that area. Commissioner Baker stated it is staffs recommendation and the firm's concurrence that the vacant land could stay in medium to high residential development. It is one thing to allow the development without this depth of information, but why the concurrence that it is appropriate to continue to allow that higher level of density where there is a concern. Mr. Brody replied they are talldng about the area in the B-2 zone which is away from the end of the runway. The highest preponderance of risk is within 3,000 feet of the runway. They would agree there is a modest amount of risk within that B-2 zone. In looking at the question of commercial industrial type development, non-residential uses, the density they would consider acceptable was applied with respect to the residential as if similar density were occurring there. Although normally they try to apply a higher standard for residences, in this case there seems to be overriding community interests regarding density in that area. They would prefer it stay non-residential, but if it is going to be residential, just in terms of the noise facet higher density is better because of the higher noise level tolerance. Commissioner Baker stated aircraft approaching from the north use State Street as a guide. She was surprised to not see a policy recommendation relative to that. Her concern is aircraft flying low over the downtown area. Mr. Brody replied he was unsure just what kind of a policy might be formulated. They did address the height of structures in that area, and did maintain density limitations of 90 people per acre, which precludes major shopping centers, fast food establishments, and similar uses. He questioned the effects on the community as a whole and the core of the City if further restrictions were placed on MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 11 that area. Commissioner Baker asked staff for comments relative to Page 5 of the staff packet, and the response to a letter from the California Regional Water Quality Board. She inquired why the language recommended in the staff report is different from the specific language recommended by the Regional Board. Mr. Sawyer replied it is just a recommendation for certain language, and can be added to the master plan. Commissioner Larson, referring to Page 7-9 regarding the land use element and the compatibility with the new General Plan, stated that in the paragraph entitled "Land Use Element," the new General Plan calls for annexation of currently unincorporated lands. His recollection at City Council hearings was that the bulk of the annexation policy recommended by the steering committee was deleted. He asked if the report reflected that deletion. Mr. Sawyer said it does not; there is a need for revision. Mr. Brody commented since some of the parcels recommended for acquisition by the City are not within the current City limits, presurmbly if the City would acquire them, they would want to at least annex any that they owned. Commissioner Larson commented the City backed off of an aggressive City annexation policy proposed in the new General Plan. He was unsure whether the particular parcels in question here were exempt from that. Mr. Sawyer stated the new master plan needs to be revised to reflect that Council action. Commissioner Larson stated high density residential use is more preferable for noise considerations, but seems to be in conflict with safety considerations. In terms of a plane crash, lower density residential would kill fewer people. Mr. Brody replied that the closer to the runway, the higher the emphasis on safety. Higher density can be accepted further away from the runway because the risks are reduced. Commissioner Larson, referring to the Page 7-12 table that was mentioned as being mislabeled, asked for clarification of the origin of the information in the table. Mr. Brody replied they were the consultants for the County on the development of the land use plan. They have been doing the work on similar plans for 15 counties around the state; the process has been an evolutionary one. They have also been doing the work on compatibility for 20 years, and have followed up as to what worked and what did not. They subsequently make modifications on the next MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 12 one they do, and it is continued that way down the line. This particular plan is one of the more recent ones, and within the same basic set of concepts as what the state has in their statewide handbook. Some airport land use commissions do things differently, for example separating the noise and safety policies rather than combining them as they did. Commissioner Larson asked if this was a fakly standard or reflective of a fairly standard airport land use plan. Mr. Brody replied that was correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 8:10 p.m. Rudolph Light, 616 West Church Street, distributed handouts to the Commission. He commended Hodges and Shutt for the firm's fine work, and stated he was not aware the Planning Commission was going to restrict itself to Chapter 7 of the proposed airport master plan. Referencing his letter to the Commission of November 29, 1995, he stated he had made an error regarding the chart on Page 7-12. It states on the right hand column "Uses not normally acceptable in Zone C--large shopping malls, theaters, auditoriums, etc. "--and he included in his letter that they were acceptable. Tonight they were talldng about modifications of that chart on Page 7-33, and as was learned from the Airport Land Use Commission Plan they adhered several years ago, he still holds to his comments regarding the B-2 zone. At the top of Page 7-33 they talk about the normally acceptable uses of multiple story offices, hotels, and motels. It s~ms to him that if there is a B-2 overlay zone, any such --zone should have consistent land uses within that zone, no matter how many of those zones there are and where they are located. Discrimination cannot occur between zones. Directly east of the airport on the airport industrial park land, Hodges and Shutt is suggesting a B-2 zone. If this were to go through as it stands, he does not see why Gary Akerstrom could not apply for, and get the rights to construct, multiple story buildings right next to the airport. Hodges and Shutt must go back and carefully delineate the permitted, restricted, and prohibited uses within each of these zones. Several years ago the firm produced an airport land use compatibility handbook. But even there it does not def'me what these zones are. It talks in general terms, but doesn't describe in the detail he feels is needed. He recommends the firm look at these in more detail. Referencing his handouts, he stated there is still some controversy about the land use around the airport. One handout (the sole copy given to Commissioner Baker) shows the airport layout plan. The other two are recommended routings for Airport Road coming down by the railroad tracks and then ending up with Townsend Lane. He has noted the location of the radio antenna (localizer) at the south end of the airport. Just off of Pomo lane is the transformer and power supply for it. The road as envisioned by Leonard Charles and Associates would go right by that. This is clearly an incompatible use for the airport. The last handout comes directly from the General Plan, that the steering committee and the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 13 circulation element provided. The circulation element suggested that Airport Park Boulevard be continued south past the location of the Mendocino Brewery, cross under the freeway, and then pass down to Plant Road, that being the major access into the Redwood Business Park and Airport Industrial Park, alleviating a great deal of the problem that Norgard Lane is going to have. The other comments in his letter generally refer to the Airport Commission and the runway lengths. Hodges and Shutt suggest now not to lengthen the runway. In earlier discussions it was his understanding that the firm believed the City ought to at least keep the option open to lengthen the runway to the south. He believes this should still be considered. Commissioner Pruden stated she recognizes Rudy Light's expertise on the airport element and the many years he spent on the Airport Commission, and takes his comments seriously. On the second point in the letter regarding the designation of half of the Airport Industrial Park as C, thereby allowing extensive development on the other side of Commerce Drive, she understands he is concerned about what can happen on the east side of the industrial park. In the recommendation he said that if they need to, he would find it acceptable to go around the Wal-Mart and Friedman's sites, leave them C, but leave the rest designated B-2. The high intensity retail commercial will terminate at the south end of the Friedman's lot. Discussion followed relative to retail development around Friedman Bros. and Wal-Mart. Commissioner Larson had no comments. Commissioner Smith had no comments. Chairman Ashiku asked Mr.Light if the airport runway, it if was enlarged, could accommodate a C 130 aircraft. Mr. Light replied the C130's have landed at Ukiah since August. There have been 9 landings and takeoffs, including during the time they were fighting fires. Previously CDF had said the runway was too short for them to consider coming here. Chairman Ashiku clarified that CDF thought a longer runway would be safer. Mr. Light said that was correct. Chairman Ashiku asked if it was tree it was temPerature and wind dependent, and if it was correct to assume that in the summer if it was extremely hot the planes would require more room for take-off. Mr. Light replied it would require more, but that even here the density altitude does not get much over 2500 feet. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 14 John McCowen, PO Box 454, Ukiah, stated he has air for sale adjacent to the airport. He finds it interesting that the Garden Court Motor Inn is in the A zone, and the City is an active participant is insuring that residential use will not only continue but expand in that area. That introduces an element of hypocrisy into the entire process. He sees also that where people stand to make a lot of money, we are willing to give them basically what they want. It seems ridiculous to stipulate restrictions on a huge area of the town, but to allow big box development. Them is a large vacant parcel that has been projected as ideal for high density residential, yet there are many other existing parcels that are going to have their development opportunities greatly restricted. Where better to restrict than on a vacant parcel. Some communities do not have much more than an A zone. He wonders if a lot of it is really driven by concerns regarding litigation from lawyers and also airport preservationists. The entire thing is skewed more toward protecting the airport from people rather than protecting people from the airport. His particular conflict of interest centers on one parcel in the B-1 zone, which is currently zoned commercial but the use is currently residential. In this document, the parcel is recommended for industrial use. He asked Mr. Sawyer for clarification. Mr. Sawyer replied the master plan does not draw that conclusion. It simply identifies the criteria for land uses in the B-1 zone and the one that seems to fit that criteria the best is industrial. Mr. McCowen asked at what point that would be finalized, or would it just be left open with that general criteria, and at a future time the planners would apply them to that particular site. Mr. Sawyer replied the master land use plan must be consistent with the General Plan, and zoning must also be consistent, so eventually these properties would be rezoned to be consistent with both these policy documents. He noted that the property Mr. McCowen was referring to is in the County, and it would be their rezoning program, not the City's. Chairman Ashiku asked what jurisdiction they had on this County property. Mr. Sawyer replied both the General Plan and this document will go to the County for their review. Chairman Ashiku asked the speaker to clarify his position. Mr. McCowen replied commercial makes the most sense for the particular parcel that he owns. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Pruden commented there has been a lot of discussion relative to the airport and its importance to the community. To protect it they need to look at the mechanisms such as land use which would allow the airport to function without high density noise and safety issues. This is an isolated valley, and to remove the airport at this location jeopardizes the safety of the residents. She stated she had few concerns with the Airport Master Plan. Referencing Pages 4 and 5 and Recommendations 2 and 3 of staffs report, she cited inconsistencies relative to the B-2 zone. She MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 15 suggested a need to look at staffs four recommendations. Commissioner Baker commended Hodges and Shutt for a job well done, and asked why the document intentionally seemed to follow the General Plan. Mr. Sawyer replied they were anticipating the adoption of the General Plan, which is the broader policy document the City uses for land use development. Staff had thought the General Plan would be adopted over a year ago. The airport land use compatibility issues may require reform of the General Plan because of the time frame. Commissioner Baker commented she was sorry they did not have this document when working on the growth steering committee. She is not in agreement with all of staff's recommendations, although she does agree with public concerns that safety issues can be enhanced. Those enhancements would institute some significant changes in the General Plan. She has some deep concerns about the flight pattern of the jets over the downtown corridor and would like to see some policies developed in this plan that would either restrict the approach to the airport over the downtown area or set a minimum air traffic level. She would also like to see the language requested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as specified by them included in the plan. She would agree with staff Reconamndations 1 and 4, but on Reconamndations 2 and 3 she would recommend that on existing medium density development and vacant land within the B-2 zone, it be reclassified to low density residential, open space or other appropriate low intensity use or occupation land use classifications. She does not agree a higher density is acceptable because people are less concerned about noise. She feels generally Ukiah to be a safe airport, and the size of the planes are not terribly dangerous should they fall out of the sky. The,biggest safety issue if a small plane falls is not the damage caused by its impact, but the danger of fire in a multi-story multi-family building. Discussion followed relative to the definition of commercially designated properties and staffs recommendations 1 through 4. RECESS: 8:55 p.m. RECONVENE: 9:07 p.m. Mr. Sawyer suggested a solution would be to leave any classification they would like and advise staff to advise the City Council to create overlay zoning, which would accomplish the goals and criteria established in the master plan in relationship to airport safety and noise issues. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Baker to accept staffs recommendation No. 4 as written, it failed for lack of a second. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pmden, it was carded by the following roll call vote, to advise staff to advise the City Council to keep the land use classification MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 16 as commercial and create overlay zoning. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Pruden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku Commissioner Baker None None Discussion followed relative to overlay zoning. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to accept staffs recommendation to indicate on the land use category that it will be necessary to use overlay zoning or other effective mechanisms to deal with density issues to make it consistent with the Airport Master Plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Pruden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku Commissioner Baker None None Commissioner Pruden stated she was still having a problem with the inconsistencies between staff Recomrmndations 2 and 3. She stated she would be supportive of low or medium density residential for B-2. She is not at all supportive of high density for B-2 on Item 3. Discussion followed regarding density issues. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pmden to recommend that on staff Recommendations 2 and 3 the B-2 zones be retained as low or medium density residential on the General Plan, also including the vacant land on Number 3, it failed for lack of a second. ON A MOTION by Chairman Ashiku, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was defeated by the following roll call vote, to adopt staff recommendations for Items 2 and 3. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENT: Commissioner Smith and Chairman Ashiku Commissioners Baker, Larson, and Pmden None None ON A MOTION by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Pruden, it was defeated by the following roll call vote, to change the land use classification on the residential development to low to medium, medium as a maximmn, based on existing uses, to not allow high density in this B-2 zone, and to use overlay zoning on the non-residential areas to show intent and conformance with the concerns of the master plan on land use. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 17 Commissioner Larson stated that at this point he is not prepared to support any recommendation. He cited his lack of understanding of the ramifications of any of the changes at this point. He would like to see some more in-depth analysis of the real risks involved in specific parcels within that designation, and what the real options are to relocating those densities. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker and Pmden Commissioners Larson, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku None None Commissioner Baker suggested they send back to staff for additional recommendations on how to achieve what the Commission needs to achieve according to the master plan. ON A MOTION by Chairman Ashiku, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was defeated by the following roll call vote, to make no recommendations on Items 2 and 3 and have staff incorporate the comments of this Commission and forward those on to the Council for their evaluation as far as recommendations relative to density changes. Commissioner Pruden stated it should be indicated the Commission has a concern relative to low level flights over the downtown, and for the City Council to look at ordinances or policies relative to regulating flight paths and elevations. She expressed her opinion that there was no need for a motion. Chairman Ashiku was unwilling to rescind his motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Smith and Chairman Ashiku Commissioners Baker, Larson, and Pmden None None ON A MOTION by Conardssioner Pmden, seconded by Commissioner Larson, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Larson, Pruden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku Commissioner Baker None None ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pmden, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to recommend the City Council approve the Land Use and Envkonmental Issues Chapter and adopt the Airport Master Plan. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Larson, Pruden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku Commissioner Baker MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 18 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 7A. Site Development Permit Application No. 95-42, as filed by Robert Harris & Olaf Gross. to allow the construction of eight apartment buildings containing four apartment units each on four contiguous parcels in the Marlene Estater Planned Development area, on property located at 865, 875, 885 and 895 South Orchard Avenue, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 003-181-60, 61, 62 and 63. Associate Planner David Lohse advised the project consists of a site development permit to allow the construction of 8 apartment buildings on a project site that encompasses 4 separate lots located in the Marlene Estates Planned Development. Each apartment building would contain 4 apartments, or a total of 32 units. For clarification, staff wishes to inform the Commission that a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA g95- 43) requested by the applicants for this project was approved by the City Engineer. Once the conditions for this project have been completed, the boundary line shown on the project site plans for this project as the "PROPOSED P.L.," or property line, will be the effective property line between the units shown as Chinook No. 7 (East and West) and Chinook No. 6 (East and West). Staff has done its analysis in anticipation of the approval of the boundary line adjustment. There will be two apartment buildings (8 units) with a maximum height of 40 feet on each individual parcel. The buildings will be identical in design, with one ground floor unit, one 2nd story unit (over a 4-car garage), and two 2-story units. There will be approximately 3,700 sq.ft, per building with 1210-1250 sq.ft, per unit. Access will be provided by two 24-foot wide access drives located on common property lines between the apartment buildings. The 30 foot wide approach to the 155 feet long driveways will be posted NO PARKING, as per the requirements of the Ukiah Fire Department. Sixteen parking spaces would be required for the apartment buildings on each parcel. Each parcel has 8-9 uncovered spaces on the east side of the parcels, and 8 covered spaces located in the apartment buildings. All are full size or handicapped spaces. The landscaping plan includes retention of all existing trees and riparian vegetation along Mendocino creek, the retention of existing street trees along Orchard Avenue, and extensive planting of introduced lawns, buses and trees. Planning Department's analysis was done to determine consistency with Resolution No. 91-2, which MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 19 permitted the establishment of the Marlene Estates Planned Development; Resolution No. 93-26, which allowed the Parcel Map that divided the site into its current configuration; and Use and Development Standards for the R-2 Zoning District, as outlined in Municipal Code, since Condition No. 19 of both of the resolutions requires that development not specifically regulated by the Conditions of Approval for these resolutions be consistent with the standards for the zoning district that the use would be permitted in. The Planning Department had concluded that the proposed development is consistent with the applicable use and development standards required in the documents discussed. Planning staff also completed an Initial Study for the project, and determined that the proposed development would cause no significant impacts that would not be mitigated to a level of insignificance if the recommended mitigation measures are included in the approval of the Negative Declaration prepared by staff. Staff has further concluded that the development proposed in this project includes apartment uses and numbers that have been analyzed in the previous projects that were approved to establish the Marlene Estates PD. Therefore the project effectively constitutes an "infill" project, and does not create any substantial adverse effects that have not been analyzed and mitigated by the approval of Resolutions 91-2 and 93-26. Based on its conclusions that the proposed development is consistent with required standards for the Marlene Estates PD and the R-2 Zoning District, where applicable, staff has prepared the Findings listed on Page 4 of the Planning Report and its recommendation for approval of the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and for Site Development Permit #95-42, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed on Pages 5 through 7 of the Planning Report. Chairman Ashiku polled the Commissioners, who all indicated they had visited the project site. Commissioner Baker asked how many bedrooms there were per unit. Mr. Lohse responded there were two and 3 bedrooms per each unit of approximately 1,250 sq.ft. Commissioner Baker stated her biggest concern is the cumulative effect of this project on the traffic and the analysis of the traffic flow which basically assumes all the traffic goes to Orchard and Gobbi and none of it filters through to Lorraine and Betty Street and on to Talmage Road. She is concerned that between the development south of Talmage Road and this development that traffic impact on the Betty Street neighborhood has been underestimated. The signalization of Orchard and Gobbi will probably not happen for another five years; she recommends the City do whatever possible to hasten the signalization of that comer. Her other concern is that this is family housing of the highest standard that she is seen, and she is disappointed there is no on-site recreational facilities. The assumption is made that the community will provide these facilities through parks. She is of the MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 20 opinion that family housing developments should be encouraged to have on-site recreational facilities for the tenants. Commissioner Smith stated his concurrence with Commissioner Baker's comments relative to traffic, and asked for clarification of the parking requirements. Mr. Lohse replied that two parking spaces per unit, for a total of 64, will be required. The applicants have attained that by including outdoor parking on the eastem portion of the lots and providing garages below each unit. It will be a combination of outdoor and indoor parking. Commissioner Smith inquired regarding visitor parking. Mr. Lohse replied the code does not require additional parking for guests. There is a long stretch of frontage in front of the four units that will allow guest parking on the exterior. He did a survey of the apartment units presently there, and found very little parking on the street. In addition, this parking design pushes the parking that will be on the site away from the street. By order of the Fire Marshal, the only place where parking is prohibited is on the actual driveway itself. Commissioner Pruden indicated the conditions of approval closely mimic the resolution for the final subdivision map. She asked if adding conditions would create a problem with the resolution. Mr. Lohse replied it wouldn't, since one of the conditions the subdivision map approval required was that it undergo a site development permit if it had three or more units per site. Commissioner Pruden stated she wanted to make it a condition that those enclosed parking spaces be used only for vehicles. Mr. Lohse responded he did not think the condition necessary because if someone requests conversion to a habitable space there would have to be a review at the Building Permit stage. Planning Staff would not sign off on this permit if any converted parking spaces were not replaced. Mr. Sawyer commented if it is conditioned, it would force code enforcement to keep an eye on it. Commissioner Pruden stated she had noticed that only one of two of the street trees previously planted there have survived. She asked for clarification relative to why the plantings were not maintained. Mr. Lohse replied the lack of maintenance was the City's responsibility. Commissioner Pruden asked how the City can be made to maintain the trees. Mr. Lohse replied they will see if the trees can be incorporated into the street tree program and MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 21 replanted. Commissioner Larson inquired regarding the status of funding for the signalization of Orchard and Gobbi. Mr. Lohse responded the money is still being collected and will be collected as part of this process as well. Commissioner Larson asked if there were any funds collecting to develop properties. Mr. Lohse replied the funding for a signal at Gobbi and Orchard will not be funded entirely from the development of the Marlene Estates or the Brookside Estates. They are anticipating commercial development north of Gobbi Street which will bring in quite a bit of the funding. Anticipated comrmrcial projects have not come to fruition because of lack of funding by private development so the City has not been able to install the signal. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10:11 p.m. Bing Wong, representing applicants Robert Harris and Olaf Gross, stated they concur with staffs recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10:12 p.m. Commissioner Larson stated his concems relative to the impacts on Lorraine Street. The traffic studies indicated cumulative development would generate an 800% increase on Lorraine Street. There has already been a 300% increase. If the signal does not go in at Gobbi and Orchard, it will be a congested intersection and tend to divert traffic to Lorraine and Betty Streets. To date the City has done nothing about its promise to create a traffic management program for that street. This project is not significant in terms of cumulative impacts, but the overall impacts do concem him. The project itself seems to have tremendous merit and he likes it. Commissioner Baker stated she wants to approve this project, but would encourage the developer to generate on-site recreational facilities and encourage the City to develop a policy regarding multi- family housing. In the environrmntal report of the Negative Declaration, her concern was that on the mandatory findings of significance on Page 7, she had a hard time agreeing with the assessment on lC of the cumulative impacts that the answer was no. She would like to approve the project but wants the Commission to recognize that this project adds to the cumulative impact of a traffic problem that the City needs to address. Commissioner Pruden stated this project goes back a long way, and thinks they gave away a lot in the PD stage recreationally. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 22 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pmden, seconded by Commissioner Smith, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to approve Site Development Permit application No. 95-42, as filed by Robert Harris and Olaf Gross, to allow the construction of eight apartment buildings containing four apartment units each on four contiguous parcels in the Marlene Estates Planned Development area, based on the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions: FINDINGS: The project conforms to the use and development standards established for the Marlene Estates Planned Development by the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 91-2 and Resolution No. 93-26; . The project conforms to the use and development standards established in the Municipal Code for the development of multiple family residences, including height, building site areas, yard areas, setbacks and parking; . The project generates no significant impacts that would not be mitigated to insignificant levels if the mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study prepared for the project are adopted; . The granting of the proposed Site Development Permit will not, as conditioned, materially affect the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental to property or improvements on or around the site, or be harn-afal to the general welfare of the City since the development proposed on the site has been designed in conformance with applicable standards for multiple-family residential development required by the resolutions that established the Marlene Estates Planned Development, and with applicable Municipal Code requirements for the development of multiple-family residential uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The developer shall pay a per-acre fee on property as it is developed, for traffic signalization at East Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 90-47 dated May 16, 1990. Said costs to be prorated and collected with each building permit. . A copy of the plot plan be provided to potential purchasers indicating setback requirements and applicable restrictions in accordance with current disclosure laws. . Hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to dark, Monday through Saturday. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 23 4. Dust control measures be instituted during construction. . 6, . . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Inspection fees shall be paid prior to start of any construction. If during any construction or grading activity, possibly significant archaeological objects or sites are encountered, all work within the vicinity of such object or site shall irnrnediately cease and the site shall be secured. A credentialed archaeologist shall be hired to investigate the site with the assistance of a Native American observer and develop a mitigation plan to preserve and protect the site or object. The developer shall complete construction of sound barrier fence and installation of appropriate landscaping for those parcels adjacent to the freeway. Said fence and landscaping shall be approved by the Directors of Planning and Public Works and be at least equivalent in aesthetic quality and sound attenuation as the freeway mounded landscaped area/fence system existing on similarly situated developed properties immediately south of the project. Mature trees along the freeway, western property line, and Mendocino Creek are to be preserved and not removed without the approval of the Directors of Public Works and Planning. Property sale or rental agreements shall include a statement signed by prospective owner or tenant indicating that the property is within one mile of an active airport, there will be aircraft overflights and attendant noise in the vicinity of this property, and the volume of aircraft activity may increase in the future. All units constructed in the subdivision are required to have installed low-flow showerheads and faucets and ultra-low-flush toilets. Prior to construction on the project site, a Site Development Permit shall be secured if one, or more, additional units designed for human occupation are to be built on the property. Fire hydrants to be provided by the developer to the approval of the Fire Marshal. Street lights to be provided by the developer to the approval of the City Electric Department. All development standards legally applicable within the City of Ukiah shall be complied with unless specifically noted otherwise in this resolution or on the development plan. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 24 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Access from lots fronting Orchard Avenue may be allowed by providing common, joint, or adjacent driveways on adjacent parcels with no minimum separation requirement and with adequate easements provided for common driveways to the approval of the City Engineer. School impact fees shall be paid to the Ukiah Unified School District pursuant to adopted procedures. Significant alterations to the natural contour and depth profile of the portion of Mendocino Creed channel, which runs through the project, including modifications to channel width and meander patterns shall be avoided, except as necessary for the installation of the culvert required for the extension of orchard Avenue as shown on the Development Plan Map. The culvert must be constructed to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the minimum necessary to complete operations. The disturbed portions of the stream banks or channel profile shall be restored. Such restoration shall include revegetating striped or exposed areas following construction to reduce erosion. Installation of culverts, rock slope protection, or other in-channel structures shall be such that water flow is not impaired and upstream or downstream passage of fish is assured at all times. Any in-channel construction operations shall be confined to periods when the affected section of Mendocino Creek is void of surface water. No debris, soil, silt, cement, oil, or other such foreign substance shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into Mendocino Creek. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. An agreement shall be made between the subdivider and the City of Ukiah to maintain the condition of in-stream structures in perpetuity, and to repair all areas with the project site d/when they pose adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources prior to approval of occupancy permits for building constructed on the project site. Commissioners Baker, Larson, Pmden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku None None None MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 25 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pmden, it was carried by the following roll call vote, to approve Negative Declaration No. 95-42/43. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Larson, Pmden, Smith, and Chairman Ashiku None None None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT A. City Council and Redevelopment Agency Actions Planning Director Robert Sawyer advised that Mayor Schneiter had noted previous Planning Commission Minutes did not indicate the Commissioners had been polled regarding project site visitation. It was determined the polling will take place at future meetings and the record shall reflect such. B. Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Chairman Ashiku suggested the Commission take advantage of the lighter schedule and have a meeting regarding proactive planning. Discussion followed relative to what should be agendized for a special meeting. Chairman Ashiku asked the Commissioners to submit suggested agenda items and he will notice the public of the items for discussion. Commissioner Pruden commented she was disappointed with the evening's meeting in that it had become bogged down and did not proceed as fast as it should. Commissioner Smith requested clarification of Councilman Sheridan Malone's statements at the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting regarding the Commissioners' meeting attendance. Discussion followed wherein it was determined it was necessary to research the issue relative to the number of missed meetings allowed, and report such at the next Planning Commission meeting. Discussion followed relative to the joint meeting held with the City Council and the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS None MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 26 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Philip Ashiku, Chairman Marge Giuntoli, Recording Secretary b:pc121395.min MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 13, 1995 Page 27 UKIAH AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES : DECEMBER 12, 1995 DRAFT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ..STAFF PRESENT Mark Davis Matt Froneberger Allan Hunter Dodeen McBride Howard Henley, Chairman Don Bua Airport Manager Paul Richey Airport Assistant ..COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Ken Fowler Rudy Light The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Airport Administration Lobby, 1411 South State Street, Ukiah, California by Chairman Howard Henley. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Don Bua. Roll was taken with the results listed above. Ken Fowler notified Chairman Henley that he would not be attending the meeting tonight. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were made to the minutes of the November 14, 1995 meeting. On page 3, paragraph 6, 'hangar list" was changed to read 'hangar use". ON A MOTION by Commissioner McBride, seconded by Commissioner Davis, it was carried by an all aye vote of Commissioners present, to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1995 meeting, as amended. STAFF REPORTS a. 1995/96 Airport Bud;let Review Staff distributed copies of the 1995/96 Airport Budget for review. Chairman Henley requested that the Budget be reviewed by Commission at home and bdng this item back to the Commission at the next meeting. Commission concurred. b. Taxiway Connector Airport Manager Bua reported that the Taxiway Connector project, discussed at the last meeting has been completed and is in use at this time. He further informed that Retech personnel are using the taxiway and are pleased with it. This has solved the traffic congestion problem in that area. Chairman Henley advised that more paving in that area is needed and asked if Retech will pay pay for it. Airport Manager Bua responded that he will check with Retech regarding this matter. c. Garden Court Motel Airport Manager Bua reported the tree removai work at the motel is completed and the motel owners are pleased. He further advised that the City of Ukiah owns the avigation easement for airspace above the motel. Discussion followed conceming easement cost, clearzone area, and history of that project. Airport Manager Bua advised that the contractor will retum late winter to prune and trim the remaining trees. DISCUSSION/ACTION a. Airport Master Plan Review/Dr. Rudy Light Chairman Henley introduced Dr. Rudy Ught to the Commission. Staff distributed copies of the draft Master Plan to the Commissioners. Dr. Ught and Airport Manager Bua reviewed the draft Master Plan with Commission. Dr. Light stated that the draft Plan is generally a good document, however, he has serious concerns about three of the items in the draft Plan. , Draft proposal states that the runway is too wide and needs to be narrowed to 100 feet. This goes without saying, there has never been a pilot that has landed or taken off on a runway that was too wide or too long. The cost to tear up part of the width of the runway, remove said asphalt, and move runway lights is cost prohibitive. . Draft proposal states that the runway length is adequate and will never need to be lengthened. This proposal is short sighted. The CaJifomia Division of Forestry (C.D.F.), C-130 Hercules, uses the Ukiah Airport for a reload base, at this time, as well as the S-2F fire retardant aircraft. He mentioned any additional runway available for takeoff while loaded is helpful, and will increase the safety of the citizens of this community. Further, at the joint Commission/City Council meeting of two years ago, Council showed an interest in increasing the runway length to the south and directed Staff to investigate. The wise and prudent path would be for the City to acquire parcels adjacent to the south end of the runway, and zone the area to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible development. The possibility of a future runway extension is further threatened by the proposal of the Redwood Business Park to use Norgard Lane as a major access mute to and from the Park. This would effectively box in the Airport. With Hastings Road to the north, a built out Redwood Business Park to the east, and a widened Norgard Lane to the south, the Airport is doomed. He further recalled the circulation element and the City's General Plan revision recommended that Airport Road be extended and connected to Plant Road and a connection with Norgard Lane. Minutes of the Airport Commission December 12, 1995 Page 2 UKIAH AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 1995 D AFT ,COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Mark Davis Matt Froneberger Allan Hunter Dorleen McBride Howard Henley, Chairman Don Bua Airport Manager Paul Richey Airport Assistant COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Ken Fowler Rudy Light The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. at the Airport Administration Lobby, 1411 South State Street, Ukiah, California by Chairman Howard Henley. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Don Bua. Roll was taken with the results listed above. Ken Fowler notified Chairman Henley that he would not be attending the meeting tonight. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following corrections were made to the minutes of the November 14, 1995 meeting. On page 3, paragraph 6, 'hangar list" was changed to read "hangar use". ON A MOTION by Commissioner McBdde, seconded by Commissioner Davis, it was carried by an all aye vote of Commissioners present, to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1995 meeting, as amended. .S, TAFF REPORTS a. 1995/96 Airport Budget Review Staff distributed copies of the 1995/96 Airport Budget for review. Chairman Henley requested that the Budget be reviewed by Commission at home and bdng this item back to the Commission at the next meeting. Commission concurred. b. Taxiway Connector Airport Manager Bua reported that the Taxiway Connector project, discussed at the last meeting has been completed and is in use at this time. He further informed that Retech personnel are using the taxiway and are pleased with it. This has solved the traffic congestion problem in that area. Chairman Henley advised that more paving in that area is needed and asked if Retech will pay pay for it. Airport Manager Bua responded that he will check with Retech regarding this matter. c. Garden Court Motel Airport Manager Bua reported the tree removal work at the motel is completed and the motel owners are pleased. He further advised that the City of Ukiah owns the avigation easement for airspace above the motel. Discussion followed concerning easement cost, clearzone area, and history of that project. Airport Manager Bua advised that the contractor will return late winter to prune and trim the remaining trees. DISCUSSION/ACTION a. Airport Master Plan Review/Dr. Rudy Light Chairman Henley introduced Dr. Rudy Light to the Commission. Staff distributed copies of the draft Master Plan to the Commissioners. Dr. Ught and Airport Manager Bua reviewed the draft Master Plan with Commission. Dr. Light stated that the draft Plan is generally a good document, however, he has serious concerns about three of the items in the draft Plan. . Draft proposal states that the runway is too wide and needs to be narrowed to 100 feet. This goes without saying, there has never been a pilot that has landed or taken off on a runway that was too wide or too long. The cost to tear up part of the width of the runway, remove said asphalt, and move runway lights is cost prohibitive. . Draft proposal states that the runway length is adequate and will never need to be lengthened. This proposal is short sighted. The California Division of Forestry (C.D.F.), C-130 Hercules, uses the Ukiah Airport for a reload base, at this time, as well as the S-2F fire retardant aircraft. He mentioned any additional runway available for takeoff while loaded is helpful, and will increase the safety of the citizens of this community. Further, at the joint Commission/City Council meeting of two years ago, Council showed an interest in increasing the runway length to the south and directed Staff to investigate. The wise and prudent path would be for the City to acquire parcels adjacent to the south end of the runway, and zone the area to protect the Airport from encroachment by incompatible development. The possibility of a future runway extension is further threatened by the proposal of the Redwood Business Park to use Norgard Lane as a major access mute to and from the Park. This would effectively box in the Airport. With Hastings Road to the north, a built out Redwood Business Park to the east, and a widened Norgard Lane to the south, the Airport is doomed. He further recalled the circulation element and the City's General Plan revision recommended that Airport Road be extended and connected to Plant Road and a connection with Norgard Lane. Minutes of the Airport Commission December 12, 1995 Page 2 . The draft Plan proposes land use zones around the Airport, which includes multi- story office buildings, hotels and motels, as close as the Redwood Business Park. He advised this proposal is a safety hazard and if allowed, it will result in calls for Airport closure. Any large commercial, residential, or development of the like, is not compatible land use with the Airport. Dr. Ught concluded with a clarification on his part, stating that he wrote a letter of concem to the City about these problems and in the letter he incorrectly stated the restricted uses in zone C as acceptable uses. He regrets the error and noted the chart on page 7-12 is confusing. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the items presented by Dr. Light. Commissioner Davis stated he is glad Dr. Light has brought these items to the Commission, as an active pilot he is also concerned about the buildup on the east side of the Airport. He further mentioned many airports in similar situations have been shut down by this type of encroachment, and this Airport is too important to be put in such a threatened situation. Commissioner Hunter stated he agreed with Commissioner Davis and enquired as to how the Commission should address the problem. Dr. Light advised the Commission that this item comes before the Planning Commission on December 13, 1995. It was the consensus of Commission that three Commissioners would attend the Planning Commission meeting and a letter would be written to City Council. Commission asked that this item be put on the agenda for the next meeting. b. Aimort Staffin,q Levels Airport Manager Bua requested that this item be pursued through the Personnel Department at this time. Commission agreed. Chairman Henley requested to be kept abreast of this matter. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one came forward. COMMISSIONERS COMMENT~_ Commissioner McBride asked Staff if anything had developed concerning the compass rose. Airport Manager Bua responded No. Commissioner McBdde further suggested that there may be someone in the P.A.L. group that could paint a compass rose, she will check with Sgt. McBride. Minutes of the Airport Commission December 12, 1995 Page 3 Commissioner Hunter asked about the possibility of emergency lighting for runway lights. Discussion followed. Commissioner Hunter further inquired about the Airport Marketing Plan. Chairman Henley advised that this item will be addressed after the Master Plan is complete. Commissioner Froneberger inquired about damage from the recent storm. Airport Manager Bua responded that the Airport suffered little damage. Two aircraft, and hangar doors on one hangar, had obtained minimal damage. Chairman Henley stated he has received several comments on the Airport entrance sign; people like it! STAFF COMMENTS Staff distributed flyers for the Airport Christmas party and invited the Commissioners to attend. Airport Manager Bua commented that job reclassification for the Airport Attendant had been approved at the City Council meeting of December 6, 1995. ADJOURNMENT ON A MOTION by Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner McBride, it was carried by an ali aye vote of Commissioners present, to adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Paul Richey, Airport Assistant Recording Secretary Minutes of the Airport Commission December 12, 1995 Page 4 UKIAH AIRPORT COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1996 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Matt Froneberger Allan Hunter Dodeen McBride Howard Henley, Chairman Don Bua Airport Manager Paul Richey Airport Assistant COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Mark Davis Ken Fowler Leonard Winter The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. at the Airport Administration Lobby, 1411 South State Street, Ukiah, California by Chairman Howard Henley. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Paul Richey. Roll was taken with the results listed above. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ON A MOTION by Commissioner McBride, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, it was carried by an ali aye vote of Commissioners present, to approve the minutes of the October 10, 1995 meeting, as submitted. STAFF REPORTS a. 1995/96 Airport Bud.qet Review Chairman Henley reviewed the Budget document and stated that he was pleased with the list of objectives and feels that if all of these items can be completed, we will have had a fruitful year. Commission then discussed Administration building refurbishment, Airport directory signs, noise abatement signs, and City wide building maintenance. Chairman Henley stated that he is still concerned that the Airport needs an additional staff person to fill in during illness and vacations. Airport Manager Bua reported that he has discussed this matter with the personnel officer and hopes to get a current City employee cross trained to work part time at the Airport. This item will be brought up during budget sessions with the City Manager. Discussion followed. b. 1996 Airshow Airport Manager Bua and Dorleen McBride reported that the Police Activities League (P.A.L.) is going to sponsor the Ukiah Airshow this year on June 29 & 30, 1996. A letter has been sent to the Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) to begin this process and flyers will be distributed soon. Wayne McBride is Chairperson this year and Dorleen McBride is treasurer. Chairman Henley asked if the runway stdping can be completed before the date of the Airshow. Airport Manager Bua reviewed the state grant for slurry seal and runway striping that is in progress, and stated he hopes this can be done in time for the Airshow. DISCUSSION/ACTION a. Airport Master Plan Chairman Henley asked Commission if they had reviewed the draft Master Plan and asked for comments. Commissioner McBride asked if this document was a Planning document that is expected to last for 20 years. He further advised that we must have an F.A.A. approved Master Plan to be eligible for federal funding for Airport improvements. Discussion followed regarding the concerns raised at the last Commission meeting. The consensus of the Commission was that the draft Master Plan was well written, with the exceptions listed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Froneberger, seconded by Chairman Henley to recommend that City Council approve the Master Plan with the following changes: 1) Keep runway width 150 feet. 2) Keep option open for lengthening runway in the future. 3) Change B2 zone to prevent development of multi-story office buildings, hotels, and motels as close to the Airport as the Redwood Business Park. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Winter asked about the waste oil tank. Staff advised that this facility is open to the public. Mr. Winter further asked that the matter of naming the road behind Flight Service be put on the agenda for the next meeting. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner McBride stated she is happy that P.A.L. is sponsoring the Airshow. She further advised that P.A.L. is willing to paint a compass rose on the ramp in front of the Administration building, and she will coordinate this with Staff. Airport Manager Bua thanked her and P.A.L. for their efforts. Minutes of the Airport Commission January 9, 1996 Page 2 Commissioner McBride informed that P.A.L. will be having an open house on January 13, 1996, from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at 276 E. Clay Street, and invited the Commission to attend. Commissioner Froneberger enquired about the entrance signs. Airport Manager Bua advised that the signs were paid for from the Redevelopment Agency funds and the cost was $22,000.00. Chairman Henley asked if negotiations were ongoing with the Airporter, and if the waste oil site was working well. Airport Manager Bua responded yes to both questions. Chairman Henley further informed that the south gate has been open dudng the day this week. ADJOURNMENT ON A MOTION by Commissioner Froneberger, seconded by Commissioner McBride, it was carried by an all aye vote of Commissioners present, to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. ~aul Richey, Airport Assistant Recording Secretary Minutes of the Airport Commission January 9, 1996 Page 3 Hodges & Shutt 5010 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 526-5010 Principals: Michael A. Shutt Lee B. Moen Services to the aviation industry: · Planning · Engineering · Management MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: SUBJECT: Mr. Bob Sawyer Planning Director, City of Ukiah Ken Brody ~ December 19, 1995 Airport Master Plan Issues RECEIVED 0£C 2. O CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING OEPT. While last week's Planning Commission meeting is still fresh in my mind, I felt that it might be useful to jot down a few thoughts regarding the Airport Master Plan versus General Plan consistency issues which were addressed. I also want to take this opportunity to outline the steps in the AMP adoption process as we see it. Your staff report listed five inconsistencies between the land use compatibility rec- ommendations in the draft AMP and the land use designations in the new City General Plan. Various possible resolutions to these inconsistencies have been discussed in the Master Plan, in the staff report, and during the Planning Commis- sion meeting. The attached pages are an attempt to summarize the options and the issues behind them. With respect to the adoption process, there are several actions involving the Mendo- cino County Airport Land Use Commission which you should keep in mind. The basic point is that the proposed Airport Master Plan must be submitted to the ALUC for review before it is adopted by the City Council. Complicating the sequence of events is that the ALUC would normally base its review upon its own compatibility plan for the airport which the Commission hasn't adopted yet because it is part of the AMP which they don't have yet! To avoid this merry-go-round, we suggest the following: The City should continue the public review process for the AMP to the point where few additional significant modifications are likely to occur. We are start- ing a list of proposed changes to the AMP based upon the Planning Commission meeting and this list should be kept up to date with each subsequent public meeting. The City Council should then pass a resolution submitting the AMP to the ALUC for review. The resolution should also recommend that the ALUC amend its plan to incorporate the Ukiah Municipal Airport compatibility map and airport- specific policies as indicated in the AMP. Hodges & Shutt ,,,,,111% Mr. Bob Sawyer December 19, 1995 Page 2 The City Council should also submit to the ALUC a list of the actions which it in- tends to take to resolve the identified inconsistencies between the land use rec- ommendations in Draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and the land use designations in the adopted Ukiah General Plan. With these items in hand, the ALUC should be able to first adopt the amendment to its plan incorporating the Ukiah Municipal Airport map and policies and then find that the AMP is consistent with the ALUC plan. The City should also submit the new General Plan to the ALUC for review. Nor- mally, the law requires that this be done prior to adopting a new or amended general plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b)). Here, too, the fact that the ALUC has not yet adopted a compatibility plan for the airport complicates the situation. Considering that you have already recognized the probable need to make some adjustments to the General Plan to reflect airport compatibility issues, it is undoubtedly better that you have not already submitted the plan for review. Once the ALUC has adopted a compatibility plan, it can more easily review the General Plan together with your list of proposed amendments resolv- ing the inconsistencies. Assuming all goes well with the ALUC, the City Council can then adopt the AMP and proceed with the General Plan amendments and overlay zone preparation. If for some reason the ALUC finds the AMP inconsistent with the new compati- bility plan, then the City Council would be required to make findings and override the ALUC with a two-thirds vote in accordance with PUC Section 21676(c). The same findings/override process would also apply to the General Plan amendments if it were to be found inconsistent. We hope that the above information and the attached review will help smooth the process of AMP adoption. If you have any questions, please give me a call. KAB:kb:ca (P.S. I had intended to review the above process with Gary Pedroni, the ALUC staff, but he has not been available. I will continue to follow-up on this and will let you know if any changes result.) Hodges & Shutt December 19, 1995 Review of Identified Inconsistencies between Land Use Recommendations in Draft Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan and Land Use Designations in Adopted Ukiah General Plan Inconsistency # la: Existing High and Medium-Density Residential in the B1 Zone · Affected Area: These uses are situated north of the airport within approximately 3,000 feet of the runway end. · ALUC Criteria: ALUC policies do not apply to existing development. However, the criteria applicable to new development indicate that the maximum residential density should be 1 dwelling nnit per 10 acres and that nonresidential uses should attract no more than 60 people per acre. Noise and safety are both identified as substantial concerns. · Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: - AMP: Although the Draft AMP does not offer any specific recommendations regarding this conflict, the concerns over compatibility in this location are discussed on page 7-19. The text states that "eventual conversion of this area to low-intensity industrial or commercial uses would be preferable in terms of airport land use compatibility." - Staff Report: The staff report suggests that the existing inconsistent development "be redesignated in the General Plan to a land use category consistent with the Airport Master Plan." - Planning Commission: The Commission did not specifically address this issue. Discussion and Suggested Action: We continue to conclude that residential uses, including existing ones, are inappropriate in this location. The only suitable option therefore is to change the General Plan, thus placing these existing uses in a non-conforming status. This action should help promote the parcels' eventual conversion to an airport-compatible use. As for what specific land use designation should be applied, commercial or industrial would seem to be the only reasonable choices from a general city planning perspective. From an airport- compatibility point of view, either choice is acceptable provided that the usage is limited to 60 people per acre in accordance with the ALUC plan and the AMP recommendations. As we have discussed, our suggestion is that establishment of an airport overlay zone is the most practical means of implementing the people-per-acre standard. An alternative approach is to apply an acceptable/unacceptable evaluation to a set of standard land use codes or some other highly segregated listing of land use types. Two examples of this alternative approach are attached. Inconsistency #lb: Existing High and Medium Density Residential in the B2 Zone · Affected Area: This B2 zone encompasses a block of land lying between State Street and Highway 101 and extending from roughly 3,000 feet north of the airport to the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. The residential uses are scattered throughout this area. · ALUC Criteria: Again, ALUC policies do not apply to existing development. However, the established ALUC policies limit new residential uses in the B2 zone to densities no greater than I dwelling unit per 2 acres. · Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: AMP: On page 7-19, the AMP concludes that the existing high-density residential uses located in this area are not optimum, but can be considered acceptable because of the distance from the airport. This conclusion is based on data which indicates that, at this distance from the airport, noise is more of a factor than safety. "Also, high-density residential uses are generally regarded as being less sensitive to noise than medium and low-density residential areas (because of fewer exterior walls, less outdoor living, and typically higher ambient noise levels)." Staff Report: The staff report concludes that the existing residential development in the B2 zone "is appropriate because the developments are relatively new, contain a high number of single family residences, and are primarily single story structures". Planning Commission: The sense of the Commission's discussion on this item was that they would prefer not having land designated for high-density residential uses in this area because of the potential accident risk. However, the Commission was unable to reach a decision as to what alternative designation should be applied. Discussion and Suggested Action: We continue to stand by the AMP analysis/recommendation, especially considering that these uses already exist. From an airport-compatibility perspective, elimination of all residential uses from this area would be ideal and would have our support. Also, if this area were situated closer to the runway end or not an integral part of the central city development, our recommendations undoubtedly would be different. However, the recommendation as it stands is an attempt to balance airport-compatibility objectives with the broader community needs for high-density housing close to the city center. With regard to safety, the risks are moderate at most, although certainly not nonexistent. The issue thus becomes one of what is an acceptable risk to the community. Noise is a more straight-forward issue. Aircraft fly at low altitude over this area and each of these aircraft generates noise. To the extent that this noise noticeably exceeds ambient noise levels, it may be annoying to some people, particularly people living in single-family residences. For these reasons, we believe that high-density residential is a better choice than low-density residential for this location. Inconsistency #2: Proposed New High-Density Residential in the B2 Zone · Affected Area: The affected area is the same as that identified with respect to Inconsistency #lb. The significant difference is that this item concerns land which currently is vacant. · ALUC Criteria: Any new development in this area would be subject to ALUC review. Under the established countywide ALUC policies, residential development in the B2 zone is normally limited to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. However, ALUC policy 2.1.6 regarding infill develop- ment may be applicable to the property. Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: AMP: The AMP recommends that new single-family residential subdivisions be regarded as normally unacceptable within this area. Also, as discussed above in item #lb, avoid- ance of any residential development would be desirable. However, even where such development does not already exist, it may be appropriate to allow it to occur as infill. The AMP states that, where residential development is considered the best use for a particular area with regard to general city planning factors, high-density, multi-family residential development -- because of its lower sensitivity to noise compared to single- family residential uses -- can be considered acceptable. On page 7-33, the AMP suggests a revision to the ALUC policy for B2 zones which would incorporate this language. This revision is intended to apply only to this portion of the Ukiah Municipal Airport environs (for clarity, this particular B2 zone could be labeled as a B2* zone). - Staff Report: Staff recommends that the existing high-density residential designation in the General Plan be retained because of its location in the core. of the city. Planning Commission: The Commission mostly discussed this issue in conjunction with item #lb, the existing high-density residential development in the same area. Again, the general preference was not to allow high-density development. Commercial, industrial, and open space designations were considered, but no decision was reached as to which should be recommended. · Discussion and Suggested Action: Despite the fact that this land is vacant, we still conclude that high-density residential development is reasonable for this location. Nevertheless, we encourage consideration of a non-residential designation. Low-density residential usage should be avoided for the reasons discussed under item #lb. Inconsistency #3: Existing Hospital in the B2 Zone Affected Area: The Ukiah Valley Medical Center is located on the northern edge of the proposed B2 zone, partially within the zone and partially beyond the compatibility map boundary. The northern end of the airport runway is some 1.3 miles from the hospital properly. · ALUC Criteria: New hospitals are considered a prohibited use within the B2 zone under the countywide ALUC criteria. · Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: - AMP: The AMP does not address this issue. - Staff Report: The staff analysis indicates that this usage is appropriate because it serves an important community need and is situated near the outer edge of the B2 zone. - Planning Commission: The Commission did not address this item. Discussion and Suggested Action: To leave the applicable ALUC criteria and the proposed Ukiah Municipal Airport compatibility map unchanged with respect to the hospital property could present a problem in terms of future ALUC consistency reviews. When the ALUC reviews the new Ukiah General Plan for consistency with the ALUC compatibility plan, the fact that the hospital is an existing use should be taken into account. Because the ALUC has no jurisdiction over existing land uses, the General Plan designation of the property for hospital use should be disregarded in the consistency review. However, the ALUC might note this inconsistency and require that any future plans for significant expansion of hospital facilities be reviewed by the ALUC in accordance with the compatibility plan's policy 2.1.8. If the ALUC then found the expansion inconsistent with compatibility plan criteria, the city would be forced to override the commission's action if it wanted to allow the expansion to proceed. In reviewing the circumstances, we conclude that the hospital does not represent a major compatibility conflict with airport activities. Therefore, to avoid the above scenario, we suggest that it is reasonable to remedy the inconsistency between the General Plan and the proposed airport compatibility plan in favor of the General Plan. This could be accomplished by proposing another policy modification applicable only to this property. The easier approach, especially considering that part of the hospital property lies beyond the proposed compatibility map boundary, is to modify the boundary to exclude the entire parcel. We suggest the latter course of action. Inconsistency #4: Existing Elementary School in the C Zone · Affected Area: Oak Manor Elementary School is located within the proposed C zone, 1.1 miles northeast of the runway's north end. · ALUC Criteria: Established ALUC criteria prohibit schools within the C zone. · Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: - AMP: The AMP does not discuss the school except with regard to a proposed refinement of existing airport operational policies. Suggested policy language on pages 7-26 and 7-27 explicitly states that arriving and departing aircraft should avoid overflight of the school. - Staff Report: The staff report concludes that school's public land use designation is appropriate considering its location at the outer edge of the C zone and the school's importance in serving public needs. - Planning Commission: The Commission did not address the school property inconsis- tency. · Discussion and Suggested Action: The above discussion concerning the hospital property applies equally to the school location. Removal of the school property from the compatibility map boundaries is similarly reasonable. Also, the potential for incompatibility would be further alleviated by city adoption of the operational policy proposed in the AMP and noted above. Inconsistenc~' #$: Commercial Designated Proper~ in the A Zone · Affected Area: This inconsistency concerns privately owned property within the RPZs at each end of the runway. · ALUC Criteria: Adopted criteria regarding new development prohibit all non-aeronautical structures in the A zone and limit outdoor uses to 10 people per acre. · Previously Identified Options for Resolving the Inconsistency: AMP: The AMP proposes that, at a minimum, the city acquire approach protection easements on all remaining private property within the RPZs. These easements would not require removal of existing structures, but would restrict the manner in which the structures are used. In instances where the owners would prefer an outright sale of the property or where the appraised cost of approach protection easement acquisition equals a third or more of the fee simple cost, then fee simple acquisition is recommended. Staff Report: The staff report recommends that properties within the A zone at the south end of the airport be "redesignated to a land use category consistent with the Airport Master Plan." The report does not address the commercial prOperty at the north end of the airport. - Planning Commission: The Commission discussed the question of what other General Plan land use designations would be better than commercial. Open space was one of the options considered. The outcome of the discussion was a motion to recommend keeping the commercial designation, but to limit the uses by means of an airport overlay zone. The motion passed. · Discussion and Suggested Action: On a short-term basis, adoption of an airport overlay zone would be an effective means of restricting the uses of this RPZ property. Over the long term, however, acquisition of approach protection easements or fee title to the affected property would provide greater assurance that the land uses will be compatible with the airport. Also, the degree of restrictiveness which may be appropriate in some locations may not be achiev- able solely through overlay zoning. We encourage the city to both adopt an overlay zone and continue with the acquisition program as outlined in the AMP. CITY OF U KIAH PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DATE: APPLICANT: PROJECT: LOCATION: October 27, 1995 City of Ukiah Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the southern limits of the City between South State Street and the Northwestern Pacific Railroad tracks, less than I mile west of State Highway 101. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City of Ukiah, with the assistance of the consulting firm of Hodges & Shutt, has prepared a Master Plan for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. It is a 20-year comprehensive planning study evaluating issues that impact the future of the airport facility. It examines the current status, anticipated future use, and proposed future course of development of the airport. The plan contains a summary section, background and inventory information, a discussion of the role of the airport, a discussion of airfield design issues and the building area around the aidield, land use and environmental issues, a financial and implementation component, and an airport layout plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Located in the Yokayo Valley, the Ukiah Municipal Airport is surrounded by Iow hills, with Lake Mendocino to the north and the Mayacmas Mountains to the east, which rise nearly 2,000 feet above the 614-foot Mean Sea Level (MSL) elevation of the airport. The existing airport is developed adjacent to the residential, commercial and industrial areas of the southern portion of the community. It contains approximately 160 acres and is developed with the typical improvements of a general aviation services facility. Relatively little land remains undeveloped within the present 40 acres of the airport building area. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Initial Study of potential environmental impacts prepared by Hodges & Shutt and City staff does not identify any potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Municipal Airport Master Plan. Topics of discussion include earth, air quality, water, plant life, noise, land use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, transportation, public services, energy, and recreation. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION: . . Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will ~ot result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the e~)vironment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Charles Stump, Senior Planner/Environmental Coordinator Ukiah Municipal Airport N St. UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Location Map 0 0 Z~ 0 I I C) AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9a DATE: JANUARY 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION LANDFILL ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MEASURES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL Presented for City Council's review and consideration is the attached Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Ukiah Municipal Landfill. This Study was required by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through the issuance of the current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR's) and was prepared by Dames and Moore under contract with the City. The purpose of the Engineering Feasibility Study is to identify corrective action measures which can be implemented for the purpose of mitigating Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) impacts to groundwaters within the Landfill property. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize Director of Public Works to submit Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures prepared by Dames and Moore to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control board with the following recommendations: . . . Implementation of the small pond option with lift station and force/gravity main connection to sewer for the reconstruction and lining of the leachate pond. Implementation of Alternative 2, Limited Action, as the Corrective Action Measure for Mitigation of Impacted Groundwater with Alternative 3, Discrete Extraction/Publically Owned Treatment Works, Treatment and Discharge as a backup measure. Continuation of seasonal monitoring of the leachate extraction wells and associated groundwater monitoring wells and stream gauges. Acct. No.: Current 1995/96 Budget - $250,000 available. Fiscal Year 1996/97 Budget - to be determined. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Select other alternatives for presentation to Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Engineering Feasibility Study must be submitted to Regional Water Quality Control Board. Appropriation Requested: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. Funds to be budgeted in 1996/97. N/A Rick Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Cost Summary for Leachate Pond or Corrective Action Measure Alternatives in Combinations. APPROVED: ,~~ I~~LL/] Candace Horsley, C~anager R: I q. ANDFILL:kk AFEASi~ILITY.STY Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Ukiah Municipal Landfill January 17, 1996 Page 2 Also required under the current WDR's, are the requirement to investigate the feasibility of extracting leachate from the Landfill mass and the requirement to line the leachate ponds with primary and secondary containment features. The investigation of leachate extraction and the preliminary engineering work for leachate pond reconstruction and lining have been incorporated into the Engineering Feasibility Study. The report findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be briefly summarized in this report in three parts, (1) Leachate Pond Reconstruction and Lining, (2) Corrective Action Measures to Mitigate VOC Impact to Groundwater and, (3) Feasibility of Leachate Extraction. LEACHATE POND RECONSTRUCTION AND LINING Detailed information is presented on Pages 21 through 30 of the Study with report recommendations on Page 50, detailed estimates included in Appendix D, and schematics shown on Figures 4-1 through 4-6. Two options for leachate pond reconstruction and lining were considered. The first option included combining the two existing unlined ponds into one large lined pond with adequate capacity to contain and evaporate leachate and direct precipitation into the pond under normal climatic conditions. This option may not be capable of providing complete evaporation for those years having greater than average precipitation thereby necessitating the hauling of leachate by water tanker. The budget cost estimate which includes engineering and permitting costs for this pond option is $224,000 with additional options for, (1) soil cover over the liner to extend liner life and, (2) concrete lining protection to facilitate sedimentation removal. These additional options are estimated to cost $12,800 and $33,000 respectively. The second option involves the reconstruction and lining of a smaller pond, retaining the secondary unlined leachate pond, as a backup, the placement of a lift station, and the construction of a two inch force main and gravity main connecting the lift station to the public sewer in Vichy Springs Road. The force/gravity leachate main would traverse approximately 5,000 feet within the Landfill and Gun Club properties and would be routed as shown in Figure 4-1 of the report. Under this option, leachate within the pond would be pumped to the public sewer during non-peak periods at a daily rate not to exceed 20,000 gallons. This is the current maximum daily rate which is authorized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pretreatment of the leachate prior to placement into the sewer is not currently required given the low concentration of the constituents of concern (Kennedy/Jenks Consultant Report to Regional Water Quality Control Board). A direct connection to the sewer will require an Industrial Connection Permit and will require further approvals from Regional Water Quality Control Board. The budget cost estimate for this option which includes engineering, permitting, lift station and pipeline is $329,000. Additional options for soil cover protection, concrete lining protection, and 20 year liner warranty are estimated at $6,000, $8,000, and $30,000 Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Uldah Municipal Landfill January 17, 1996 Page 3 respectively. O & M costs and sewer treatment fees are not included in the above figures, but may be the vicinity of $55,000 based on estimates provided for groundwater extraction systems presented later in this report. Although the regulations call for double liner containment with leak detection, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, from time to time, considers alternative engineered systems. Although more costly, the Director of Public Works recommends pursuing the implementation of the small pond alternative with pump, direct connection to the public sewer in Vichy Springs Road, and the concrete protective lining option to maintain the City's options for the future. If approved by Regional Water Quality Control Board, this alternative would eliminate the need to haul leachate in water tenders thereby reducing traffic to and from the Landfill and reducing further damage to Vichy Springs Road. These items are of concern to the Landfill neighbors and the County Public Works Department. This alternative will also provide the City with some flexibility in the treatment and disposal of impacted groundwaters should the City be required to implement groundwater extraction and treatment. CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES TO MITIGATE VOC IMPACT TO GROUNDWATER Detailed information is presented on Pages 31 through 49 of the Study with report recommendations on Pages 51 through 54, and budget estimates included in Appendix E. Aquifer pump testing associated with groundwater extraction is discussed on Pages 16 through 20. Ten corrective action alternatives including a No Action alternative were developed using selected remedial technologies which were previously screened during the first phase of the Corrective Action Task. Three criteria were used during the Phase I screening process: effectiveness, implementability, and relative cost. It was determined that ex-situ (out of place) treatment technologies were superior over in-situ (in place) technologies for our use. (Table 6-1). For those corrective action alternatives which require groundwater extraction and treatment, two means of discharge were considered: discharge of treated groundwater directly to the unnamed creek and discharge of treated or untreated groundwater to the sanitary sewer system. Discharge to the aquifer was deemed technically infeasible. The ten corrective action alternatives studied in this report are summarized in Table 6-2 (refer to key to alternatives) and the types of remedial technologies applicable to each alternative are also indicated in this table. Capital costs and annual O & M costs are summarized for each alternative in Table 6-3 and each alternative is rated good, fair, or poor for each of four rating criteria: effectiveness, reliability, implementability, and community acceptance. Based on Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Uldah Municipal Landfill January 17, 1996 Page 4 aquifer pump testing performed to date, six extraction wells were assumed for the discrete extraction alternatives and 20 wells for the continuous extraction alternatives. Because the mere presence of detectable concentrations of VOC constituents constitutes an exceedance of the Water Quality Protection Standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and given the evolving State Water Resources Control Board containment zone policy, it is recommended that the City pursue Alternative 2, "Limited Action Alternative" with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Current information suggests that VOC impacts may be limited and, in some cases, show a decreasing trend over time. Alternative 2 involves the upgrading of the existing groundwater monitoring program (an additional six wells) to better define the extent of impacts along the northern landfill toe and the assessment of the potential impacts to surface water and the potential risk exposure pathways. The budget estimate for this alternative is $51,000 and the O & M is estimated at $23,000 per year. Should the Regional Water Control Board determine that the Limited Action Alternative is not protective of human health and the environment, then it is recommended that either Alternatives 3 or 6 be pursued. Both alternatives involve discrete (limited treatment area) groundwater extraction with discharge of the extracted groundwaters to either the sanitary sewer (Alternative 3) or the unnamed creek (Alternative 6). Budget cost estimates for Alternatives 3 and 6 are $300,00 and $210,000, respectively and annual O & M costs are estimated at $55,000 and $33,000. Because the discharge of treated groundwater would require a NPDES Permit, and community acceptance of discharge to the creek would be fair to poor, the Director of Public Works recommends Alternative 3, which would involve discharge to the sewer via the new lined leachate pond and lift station (pump). The capital cost for this Alternative would be less than the estimated $300,000 if the City proceeded with the smaller pond option with lift station and force/gravity line. An estimated $112,000 would be deducted for work installed under the small pond option leaving a balance of $188,000 for Alternative 3. It is noted that the reconstruction and lining of the leachate ponds and the implementation of Alternative 3 or 6 could not be funded in the same fiscal year given current revenue, expenditures and obligations. In the 1995/96 Landfill budget, $50,000 for engineering and $200,000 for construction has been designated for VOC Corrective Action. It is recommended that should the small pond option for leachate pond reconstruction and lining and Alternative 2 for corrective action to mitigate impacts to groundwater are acceptable, the $250,000 currently budgeted for corrective action be utilized for leachate pond lining and an additional $80,000 for this project, $51,000 for construction and consultation, and $23,000 for annual O & M for Alternative 2 corrective action be budgeted for the 1996/97 fiscal year. In the event that Presentation of Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for the Uldah Municipal Landfill January 17, 1996 Page 5 Alternative 2 is not acceptable to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, it is recommended that $190,000 for capital and $55,000 for O & M for Alternative 3 be budgeted for the forthcoming year. FEASIBILITY OF LEACHATE EXTRACTION Detailed information is presented on Pages 14 through 16 of the Study with report recommendations on Page 50. The three leachate extraction wells developed under this Study are depicted in Figure 3-1 as LWl, LW2, and LW3. The extraction wells were installed in areas at or near former drainage courses or ravines that existed prior to landfilling and near the former location of the unnamed creek prior to its relocation. Water was found at the interface between garbage and the natural undisturbed ground in Wells 2 and 3. Bail down tests were conducted on leachate Wells 2 and 3 to evaluate the quantity of leachate that could be extracted from these wells. The results of these tests indicate that the leachate recovery rate in the wells are low and suggests that the amount of leachate within the buried ravines are minimal at this time. Leachate extraction is not practical at the present time. It has been recommended that monitoring of leachate levels in the wells be continued and that this monitoring be coordinated with the monitoring of groundwater Wells 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, 90-6, and 92-1, and four stream gauges for the purpose of evaluating any hydraulic interaction between leachate, groundwater, and surface water. A re-evaluation of leachate extraction feasibility should be conducted after sufficient monitoring data have been obtained. Landfill Staff is currently formulating a monitoring program and the monitoring will be performed by City Staff. SUMMARY The Director of Public Works seeks City Council's authorization to submit the Engineering Feasibility Study prepared by Dames and Moore to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for their consideration with a recommendation that the City proceed with (1) the reconstruction and lining of the leachate pond under the small pond option with lift station and force/gravity main connection to the public sewer, (2) the implementation of Alternative 2, Limited Action, as the Corrective Action measure for mitigation of Impacted Groundwater, and (3) the continued seasonal monitoring of the leachate extraction wells, adjacent groundwater monitoring wells, and four stream gauges and further assessment of leachate extraction feasibility. As indicated in the revised schedule for Corrective Action Study and implementation, it is imperative that the Study be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board on or before January 19, 1996. The submittal of this Study is a WDR requirement. COST SUMMARY OF LEACHATE POND AND CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURE ALTERNATIVES IN COMBINATIONS CAPITAL COST O & M COST Pond A (1) $224,000 Z) Pond B (2) $329,000 $55,000 (3) Alternative 2 $51,000 $23,0()0 Alternative 3 $300,000 $55,000 Alternative 6 $210,000 $33,000 COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES CAPITAL O & M COST Pond A & Alt 2 $275,000 $23,000 (4) Pond A & Alt 3 $524,000 $55,000 (4) Pond A & Alt 6 $434,000 $33,000 (4) Pond B & Alt 2 $380,000 $78,000 Pond B & Alt 3 $517,000 $110,000 (3) Pond B & Alt 6 $539,000 $88,000 Notes: (1) (3) (4) Pond A is large pond option Pond B is small pond option $55,000 of this amount per year is applicable for four years These O & M costs do not Include costs related to the I~aullng, dispz~sal, and treatment of leachate 4:PW:Pond ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DAMES & MOORE SAC186.09 JANUARY 1996 02736-003-038 DAMES & MOORE 8801 FOLSOM BOULEVARD, SUITE 200, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826 (916) 387-8800 FAX: (916) 387-0802 January 10, 1996 City of Ukiah Department of Public Works 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Atten: Rick H. Kennedy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Re: Report - Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures for Ukiah Landfill Project No.: 02736-003-038 Dear Mr. Kennedy: Enclosed please find our report on the feasibility of corrective action measures for Ukiah Landfill. The report presents the results of work performed to assess: the technical feasibility of extracting leachate from the landfill; complete preliminary engineering for reconstruction of the existing leachate holding ponds; as well as develop and analyze alternative corrective action measures to address groundwater VOC impacts along the toe of the landfill. This report incorporates your comments to our December 15, 1995 draft document. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services for the City of Ukiah. If you have any questions about the report, please call us at (916) 387-8800. Sincerely, DAMES & MOORE Associate Engineer · 'a R. X3hort, C.E.G., C.H.G. Associate Engineering Geologist Enclosure 130-2.017 OF}:ICES SECTION ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................ 1 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION .................................... 3 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... 5 2.1 REGIONAL SETTING ........................................ 5 2.1.1 Topography ........................................ 5 2.1.2 Climatology ........................................ 5 2.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ............................. 6 2.2.1 Regional Geology .................................... 6 2.2.2 Site Geology ........................................ 7 2.2.3 Surface Water Hydrology ............................... 8 2.2.4 Regional Groundwater Hydrogeology ...................... 9 2.2.5 Local Groundwater Hydrogeology ........................ 9 2.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTS .............. 10 3.0 FEASIBILITY OF LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ........... 14 3.1 LEACHATE WELL INSTALLATION .............................. 14 3.2 LEACHATE BAILDOWN TESTS ................................ 15 3.3 AQUIFER TESTING ........................................ 16 3.3.1 Previous Aquifer Testing .............................. 16 3.3.2 Aquifer Pumping Tests ................................ 17 3.3.3 Analysis of Capture Zone Width ......................... 18 3.3.4 Analysis of Horizontal Drain Flow Rate .................... 20 4.0 LEACHATE POND RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ......... 21 4.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND BASIS .............................. 21 4.2 EVAPORATION POND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN .................... 22 4.3 EVAPORATION POND PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE .............. 24 4.4 ALTERNATIVES TO EVAPORATION POND RECONSTRUCTION ........ 25 5.0 LEACHATE SOURCES AND CONTROLS .............................. 28 5.1 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION AT THE WORKING FACE ......... 28 s^c186.o9 i City of Ukiah SECTION ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 5.2 5.3 5.4 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION BY LANDFILL CAPPING .......... 29 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION CONTROL OF SEEPAGE AT THE LANDFILL BASE ......................................... 29 LIMITING INFILTRATION THROUGH LEACHATE HOLDING POND ..... 29 6.0 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES FEASIBILITY STUDY ...... 31 6.1 PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESS SCREENING ........... 31 6.1.1 Groundwater Containment Technologies ................... 32 6.1.2 Ex Situ Treatment Technologies ......................... 33 6.1.3 In Situ Treatment Technologies ......................... 34 6.1.4 Discharge Options .................................. 35 6.1.5 Summary of Technology Screening ....................... 36 6.2 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ......................................... 36 6.2.1 Alternative 1 -- No-Action ............................. 37 6.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Limited-Action .......................... 38 6.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Discrete Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge ........................................ 39 6.2.4 Alternative 4 -- Discrete Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge ........................................ 39 6.2.5 Alternative 5 m Discrete Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge .................................... 40 6.2.6 Alternative 6 m Discrete Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge ...................... 41 6.2.7 Alternative 7 B Continuous Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge ........................................ 41 6.2.8 Alternative 8 -- Continuous Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge .................................... 42 6.2.9 Alternative 9 ~ Continuous Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge ...................... 43 6.2.10 Alternative 10 -- Continuous Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge ........................................ 43 6.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....... 44 s^c186.09 ii City of Ukiah ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 6.3.1 Alternative 1 u No-Action ............................. 45 6.3.2 Alternative 2 u Limited-Action .......................... 45 6.3.3 Alternative 3 -- Discrete Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge ........................................ 45 6.3.4 Alternative 4 -- Discrete Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge ........................................ 46 6.3.5 Alternative 5 -- Discrete Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge .................................... 46 6.3.6 Alternative 6 ~ Discrete Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge ...................... 46 6.3.7 Alternative 7 -- Continuous Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge ........................................ 46 6.3.8 Alternative 8 u Continuous Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge .................................... 47 6.3.9 Alternative 9 -- Continuous Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge ...................... 47 6.3.10 Alternative 10 -- Continuous Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge ........................................ 47 6.3.11 Comparison and Ranking of Alternatives .................. 47 6.4 RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............. 48 6.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING PROGRAM .................. 49 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 50 7.1 FEASIBILITY OF LEACHATE EXTRACTION ........................ 50 7.2 LEACHATE HOLDING POND RECONSTRUCTION ................. 50 7.3 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................ 51 8.0 REFERENCES .................................................. 55 SAC186.09 iii City of Ukiah ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1 TABLE 6-1 TABLE 6-2 TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF VOC MONITORING DATA REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 FIGURE 1-2 FIGURE 2-1 FIGURE 2-2 FIGURE 3-1 FIGURE 4-1 FIGURE 4-2 FIGURE 4-3 FIGURE 4-4 FIGURE 4-5 FIGURE 4-6 VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN SITE GEOLOGIC MAP SITE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PRE-LANDFILL TOPOGRAPHY SITE PLAN LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND GRADING PLAN LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND EARTH WORK SECTIONS POND LINER SECTIONS AND DETAILS ALTERNATIVE LEACHATE HOLDING POND GRADING PLAN ALTERNATIVE LEACHATE HOLDING POND EARTH WORK SECTIONS LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A VOC'TIME-CONCENTRATION GRAPHS APPENDIX B LEACHATE WELL BORING LOGS APPENDIX C AQUIFER PUMP TEST DATA APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR LEACHATE POND RECONSTRUCTION APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES S^C186.o9 iv City of Ukiah ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES UKIAH LANDFILL FOR CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Dames & Moore has prepared this report on the feasibility of corrective action measures for the Ukiah Landfill (Landfill) for the City of Ukiah Public Works Department. The Landfill is located in Ukiah (Mendocino County), California. The purpose of this study is to assist the City of Ukiah in compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) issued by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The work performed by Dames & Moore includes the completion of three primary tasks: · Assessment of the technical feasibility of leachate extraction; Completion of preliminary engineering for reconstruction and lining of the existing leachate holding pond, including consideration of the feasibility of direct connection to the sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road; and Performance of an engineering feasibility study for corrective action measures to address the existing VOC groundwater impacts along the northern toe of the Landfill. This report presents a description of the work performed, analysis of data and information obtained from this study and the work of previous consultants, development and analysis of corrective action alternatives, conclusions, and recommendations for future action by the City of Ukiah. 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Ukiah operates an unlined Class III landfill located at the end of Vichy Springs Road northeast of the City (see Figure 1-1). The 40-acre Landfill was constructed on the north side of an east-west trending ridge. An unnamed seasonal creek exists at the foot of the canyon that borders the Landfill's northern boundary. SAC 186.09 I City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Waste disposal operations began in 1955, and included open burning until 1971. Plans prepared in 1955 indicate that open trench and cover operations were originally planned. Waste disposal operations generally began at the eastern end of the Landfill footprint and progressed upslope and westward. During the 1970s, the creek channel was realigned northward to maximize the available fill area, and a soil berm was constructed along the toe of the Landfill to separate the waste from the realigned creek channel. Recent Landfill topographic contours and the approximate pre-Landfill stream alignment drawn from older topographic maps are shown on Figure 1-2. Detailed as-built drawings and documentation of channel realignment/berm construction practices are not available. The berm was reportedly constructed of compacted clay and is up to approximately 15 feet thick. The berm now forms the perimeter road which parallels the unnamed seasonal creek. Landfill operators report that the former creek channel was filled with soil, and landfill waste was placed more than five feet above the former channel. Landfill waste was deposited along the southern side of the berm and extends up the adjacent hillside to the south of the unnamed seasonal creek. The Landfill, with the exception of a small working face, is covered with interim cover. This interim cover is reported by the City of Ukiah to be at least four feet thick. Interim cover was found to be more than four feet thick during installation of leachate wells, as discussed in Section 3.0. Current ancillary facilities at the site consist of storm water runoff sedimentation ponds, dedicated daily cover soil borrow areas, groundwater and landfill gas monitoring well networks, and a leachate holding pond. The leachate holding pond receives storm water runoff from the Landfill tipping area, as well as leachate collected from surface breakouts along the benches of the Landfill. Leachate seeps and breakouts are currently captured using shallow french drains, small collection basins, and downslope laterals connected to a main leachate gravity drain along the toe of the Landfill. The unlined leachate pond acts primarily as an evaporation basin, but its capacity is not adequate to contain all leachate and direct precipitation generated during the rainy season. The City of Ukiah has recently disposed of excess leachate by pumping it from the pond to tank trucks for off-site discharge to the local publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) on an as- needed basis. S^C186.o9 2 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates landfill operations and environmental monitoring systems. Waste Discharge Orders (WDRs) Number 94-123 sets forth design requirements, operational restrictions, monitoring programs and reporting requirements for the Landfill pursuant to Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR). As required by Title 23, Detection Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring Programs were implemented to detect and evaluate potential impacts to surface water, the vadose zone, or groundwater from landfill operations. Pursuant to the Detection Monitoring Program (DMP) and Evaluation Monitoring Program (EMP) for the landfill, groundwater impacts have been identified in groundwater monitoring wells along the northern toe of the Landfill (see Figure 1-2). Constituents of concern in this area are chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Benzene impacts have also been identified near the entrance to the Landfill site. The source of these impacts are unknown and further investigation is planned to asses whether benzene impacts are associated with landfill operations. Benzene is a non-chlorinated VOC. Among other provisions, the WDRs require the City of Ukiah to design, install and operate a system to remediate chlorinated VOC groundwater impacts and to investigate the feasibility of extracting leachate from the Landfill to prevent potential groundwater impacts. Benzene impacts may also require remediation, but are not addressed in this study. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION The report is organized into eight sections, including this introduction. Section 2.0 presents a site description, including discussions of regional setting, geology and hydrogeology, and the nature and extent of groundwater impacts. Section 3.0 presents the results of the leachate extraction feasibility assessment and an assessment of groundwater extraction. This section includes a discussion on leachate monitoring well installation field activities, results of leachate baildown tests, and the results of short-term aquifer pumping tests in selected groundwater monitoring wells. These activities form the basis for evaluation of VOC corrective action measures. Section 4.0 discusses reconstruction of the existing leachate holding pond. This section includes a design basis, a conceptual design for a lined evaporation pond, and an alternative conceptual SAC 186.09 3 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill design for a smaller holding pond with a leachate lift station and connection to the existing off- site sanitary sewer. Also included are preliminary cost estimates, and a brief discussion of other alternatives to the current leachate management strategy. Section 5.0 discusses sources of leachate generation and mitigation measures, and Section 6.0 presents the groundwater corrective action measures feasibility study. Several remedial technologies are screened and used to develop ten corrective action alternatives to address VOC groundwater impacts along the northern toe of the Landfill. Preliminary life cycle cost estimates for each alternative are presented, and the alternatives are then analyzed, based on specified criteria. Preferred remedial alternatives are selected based on the detailed analysis. Section 7.0 presents Dames & Moore's conclusions and recommendations regarding each aspect of the study. Section 8.0 lists references used during the study and in development of this report. s^c186.09 4 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action A4easures Ukiah Landfill 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The Landfill is located in the foothills along the eastern margin of the Ukiah Valley. The following sections provide brief descriptions of the physiography, geology, hydrogeology, and groundwater chemical characteristics. More detailed discussions can be found in the Report of Waste Discharge (EBA, 1993). 2.1 REGIONAL SETTING The Landfill is located approximately three miles northeast of the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley. The elevation of the Valley at the City of Ukiah is approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (msl). The northwesterly-oriented Ukiah Valley is drained by the Russian River and is surrounded by relatively steep mountains which range from approximately 1,000 to 3,000 feet above msl. The Landfill is located in the Mayacmas Mountains, which flank the eastern margin of the Valley. 2.1.1 Topography The 40-acre Landfill has been constructed on the north side of a west-trending ridge approximately 1 mile east of the Ukiah Valley floor (Figure 1-1). Elevations at the Landfill range from 675 to 950 feet above msl. The Landfill surface is sloped downward from the top of the ridge to an unnamed seasonal creek which runs along the northern boundary of the Landfill. 2.1.2 Climatology The Ukiah Valley is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The majority of precipitation falls during the late fall, winter, and early spring months. Annual precipitation near the Landfill averages approximately 36 inches. Maximum annual precipitation in the City of Ukiah is approximately 61 inches, and minimum annual precipitation is approximately 13 inches. The 100-year maximum, 24-hour precipitation event for the City of Ukiah has been calculated by the California Department of Water Resources at 6.79 inches. The summer high temperatures average above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and can exceed 105°F. Winter Iow temperatures are typically 50 to 60°F, but can drop below 20°F. Due to the extended warm summer months, mean annual pan evaporation is 67.24 inches. SAC186.09 $ City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 2.2 GEOLOGYAND HYDROGEOLOGY Presented below is a discussion of the geology of the site vicinity, the local geology, and hydrogeology. More detailed discussions can be found in the Report of Waste Discharge (EBA, 1993). 2.2.1 Regional Geology The Landfill is located in the foothills along the eastern margin of the Ukiah Valley, which is a fault-bound structural basin. The Ukiah Valley area lies within the Northern Coast Range .Geomorphic Provence, which is underlain by bedrock belonging to the Franciscan formation. The Franciscan formation, which is exposed to the east of the Landfill, is composed of a complex mixture of differing rock types termed a m~lange. The m~lange is represented by discontinuous bodies of metasandstone, metagraywacke, greenstone, chert, and serpentinite contained in a highly sheared and deformed matrix of shale. Approximately 23 million years ago, the ancestral Ukiah basin began to subside in response to stresses related to displacement along the Maacama Fault and other, parallel, north-northwest trending faults to the west. Beginning approximately 5 million years ago, erosion of the Franciscan formation rock resulted in deposition of lenticular bodies of clayey and silty sands and gravels by river action. Lake deposits of blue-gray claystone and siltstone with occasional sand and gravel lenses were also deposited. The thickness of these sediments exceeds 2,000 feet in places. The sedimentary rocks are referred to as continental deposits (QTc) on the geologic map presented in Figure 2-1. The eroded surface of the Franciscan formation upon which the continental deposits were emplaced was one of highly variable topography. The terrace deposits have been faulted, uplifted, and tilted during the past 2 million years, resulting in a regional dip of 5 to 7 degrees to the northwest. The ground surface of the continental deposits has been subjected to erosion forming a steep topography, carved mainly by stream erosion. Streams have in turn recently deposited unconsolidated alluvium consisting of clay, silt, sand, and gravel in the active stream channels and flood plains. SAC186.09 6 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Although there are no known Holocene faults mapped within the Landfill, the Holocene-age Maacama fault trends to the north-northwest within one mile of the site, between the Landfill and the Russian River. The Maacama fault is considered capable of generating an earthquake of magnitude 6.5. 2.2.2 Site Geology As shown on the Site Geologic Map (Figure 2-1), the Landfill area is underlain by continental deposits (QTc) which are in turn overlain by alluvium (Qal) in the drainages, and landfill (LF) deposits. The continental deposits form the base geologic unit for the site. The moderately to loosely consolidated sediments overlie the Franciscan bedrock at a depth in excess of 265 feet, based on review of site boring logs. The continental deposits have been divided into two major units -- the upper and lower units. The upper unit, which is exposed on the higher portions of cut slopes in the Landfill area, is characterized by a variable mixture of clay through cobble-sized materials. The lower unit is finer grained, being predominantly characterized by clay through sand-sized sediments with minor silty gravel lenses. The sediments of the continental deposits are typically lenticular in nature with little evidence of internal bedding. Where present, the orientation of bedding planes are of questionable value when assessing bedrock orientation, although the majority of the data gathered support the regional dip of less than 20 degrees toward the northwest. Residual silty soil and/or gravelly colluvial material can generally be found mantling the continental deposits. The soil and colluvium is generally less than five feet thick except locally in swales. Alluvial deposits (Qal) are mapped along the axis of the western portion of the valley bordering the north side of the Landfill. This alluvium was deposited by the unnamed seasonal creek which runs through the valley. Based on historic aerial photographs of the site in its pre-landfill state, the natural course of the stream was altered and covered by the Landfill. The natural course of the stream is represented by a meandering path, as shown on Figure 3-1. The alluvial deposits in the vicinity of the landfill consist of well-rounded to sub-rounded unconsolidated clays, silts, sands, and gravels. Two of the Landfill monitoring wells, 90-1 and SAC 186.09 7 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 90-2, were both drilled through the alluvial deposits into the underlying continental deposits. Based on the boring logs for the two wells, the alluvial sediments have a maximum thickness of approximately 15 feet. Overlying the continental and the alluvial deposits are man-made deposits relating to the Landfill activities. These deposits include the Landfill waste and cover, which extend throughout the landfilled area, and the landfill toe berm and basin berms at the northern and western edges of the landfilled area. It has been reported that during construction of the Landfill, a berm (or levee) was built along the northern boundary of the current Landfill. This berm parallels the realigned unnamed seasonal creek. Based on borings at the site, this berm can be up to 15 feet thick and extends along the entire northern flank of the Landfill. At the northwest corner of the Landfill, a series of sedimentation and leachate ponds have been constructed. The geologic cross section presented on Figure 2-2 shows the relationship between the Landfill, the berm, and the underlying alluvial and continental deposits. 2.2.3 Surface Water Hydrology Significant drainages within one mile of the Landfill include Sulphur Creek to the south of the Landfill, an unnamed seasonal creek which runs along the toe of the Landfill, and Howard Creek, north of the Landfill. These streams flow west into the Russian River in the Ukiah Valley. The majority of the flow in the unnamed seasonal creek occurs during the winter and spring months; during the summer and fall, little or no flow may occur. The Landfill and unnamed seasonal creek are outside the 100-year flood plain. Surface water which comes in contact with the working face of the Landfill is collected and transferred via surface and subsurface piping to the leachate collection ponds of the northwest corner of the Landfill. Any seeps which are observed emanating from the Landfill face are intercepted via near-surface drains and transferred to a leachate collection pipe which extends along the northern boundary of the Landfill. The leachate collection pipe eventually discharges into the leachate collection ponds. Surface water which does not come in contact with the working face of the Landfill accumulates within sediment retention ponds. The runoff from the site is eventually transferred to the unnamed seasonal creek at the toe of the Landfill. This creek drains west to the Ukiah Valley at a gradient of approximately 0.05 to 0.02 foot per foot. SAC186.09 8 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 2.2.4 Regional Groundwater Hydrogeology The regional groundwater environments can be divided into three geologic units: Franciscan bedrock, continental deposits, and alluvial deposits. The Franciscan bedrock typically has a Iow potential for production of groundwater with the exception of localized areas of structural disruption, such as fault and shear zones, where the potential for groundwater yields is higher. The continental deposits consist of a heterogeneous mixture of loosely cemented clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The lateral extent of the fine-grained sediments is generally larger than the coarser- grained sediments. Therefore, well yields are generally Iow with the quantity of groundwater supplied to the wells depending for the most part on the thickness of coarse material penetrated. The alluvial deposits are distributed along the Russian River and its tributaries. They consist of uncemented gravel, silt, sand and clays which vary in thickness and width of surface exposure from extremely shallow and narrow along the minor tributaries to over 200 feet thick and two miles wide along the Russian River. The alluvium is the most productive aquifer in the Ukiah Valley, and can provide sustained well yields. However, where the alluvial deposits are thin, as near the Valley margins and along tributary streams, the alluvial aquifers may dry out completely during the summer and fall. 2.2.5 Local Groundwater Hydrogeology Boreholes installed at the Landfill during this investigation and previous investigations (Figure 2- 1) have penetrated two distinct geologic units: the alluvial deposits, and continental deposits. Both of these units contain groundwater. Groundwater has been encountered in the alluvial deposits that line the stream channel near the northwest margin of the site. These alluvial deposits are partially overlain by the northwest portion of the Landfill. The alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated, soft clayey sandy silts, and medium-dense interbedded silty sands and gravels. This unit is approximately 1 5 feet thick near monitoring wells 90-1 and 90-2. The unconsolidated nature of the water-bearing strata encountered in monitoring wells 92-1,90-3, and 90-4 indicates that these monitoring wells were also completed in the alluvial deposits. Where the alluvium is exposed at the ground surface, groundwater is encountered at a depth of about 5 feet below the ground surface. Where the alluvium is covered by the Landfill toe berm, as in wells 92-1, 90-3, and 90-4, groundwater is encountered at about 20 feet below ground surface. SAC186.09 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Wells constructed within the continental deposits include 90-2, 90-5, 90-6, 90-7, 90-8, 92-2, 92- 3, and 92-4. Groundwater is present within the continental deposits at varying depths which are dependent on topography. As would be expected, groundwater is encountered at a significant depth -- i.e., greater than 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) -- in wells installed along the ridge at the crest of the Landfill. Wells installed at the northerly toe of the Landfill have encountered groundwater at relatively shallow depths (i.e., 10 to 20 feet bgs). Figure 2-2 shows the general relationship between well location and depth to groundwater. Analysis of groundwater elevation by EBA (1993) indicates that the general groundwater flow direction is toward the northwest with groundwater gradients on the order of 0.05 feet per foot. Along the northerly toe of the Landfill,.groundwater flow may have a more west-northwest component due to the influences of the adjacent creek. The absence of a defined aquitard at the base of the alluvial deposits suggests that along the northerly toe of the Landfill there is the potential for interaction between the unnamed seasonal creek and first-encountered groundwater in the alluvium and continental deposits. The creek can be expected to recharge the local groundwater system during periods of high creek flow. During periods of Iow creek flow, groundwater may, in turn, recharge the creek. The geologic materials penetrated in the site monitoring wells are generally fine-grained and are of relatively Iow permeability. Therefore, well yields are minimal, and hydraulic conductivity is relatively Iow. Hydraulic conductivity of the local groundwater system is discussed in more detail in Section 3.0. 2.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTS Groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the Landfill on a regular basis since 1989. This monitoring has included laboratory analysis for general mineral parameters, selected metals, and organic constituents. Based on analysis of historic groundwater information, it was determined that due to spatial variations in background conditions, simple comparison of upgradient versus downgradient groundwater information was not reliable. Therefore, the Detection Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring Programs were implemented for the site use intrawell comparisons to evaluate impacts to groundwater. This program was reviewed and accepted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (EBA, 1993), and consists of comparing data from each well over time to develop a concentration limit for each well. Some wells show relatively high concentrations of naturally occurring metals, total dissolved solids, and salts. Therefore, the variability in individual concentrations of these naturally occurring chemicals may be attributed s^c186.09 10 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill to the variable background geologic conditions which necessitate the intrawell monitoring approach. Because VOCs are not naturally-occurring compounds, a mere detection constitutes an exceedance of the Water Quality Protection Standards (WQPSs) established by the RWQCB. Therefore, in accordance with Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 5 of the California Code of Regulations, the RWQCB has directed the City of Ukiah to implement corrective action measures for chlorinated VOC impacts at the Landfill. It should be noted that this report addresses impacts along the northerly toe of the Landfill and does not address benzene impacts observed near the southeastern corner of the Landfill in wells 90-8 and 92-4. These benzene impacts will be addressed by the City of Ukiah under a separate program. Near the northerly toe of the Landfill, VOCs have been consistently reported in wells 90-4, 90-5, and 92-1, and reported recently in well 90-3 (Figure 2-1). Sporadic detections of VOCs have been reported in wells 87-1, 90-1, 90-2, 90-6, and 92-3. However, these detections have not been consistent and have been attributed to laboratory error or sample contamination (EBA, 1993). Additionally, toluene, which was reported in nearly all wells sampled in April 1995, has been attributed to laboratory error (City of Ukiah, August 1, 1995). No VOCs have been reported in samples collected from the unnamed seasonal creek at the northern toe of the Landfill. A summary of the VOCs detected in the above wells is presented in Table 2-1; graphic presentations the of VOCs are presented in Appendix A. As shown in Table 2-1 and Appendix A: Well 90-3 has reported cis-l,2-dichloroethylene at concentrations less than 7#g/L (ppb); Well 90-4 has reported cis-l,2-dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride at concentrations of less than 10 #g/L. Chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, and trichloroethylene were also reported prior to January 1992; Well 90-5 has reported benzene, chloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride at concentrations less than 21 /~g/L; and · Well 92-1 has reported 1,1-dichloroethane, chloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride at concentrations less than 10 ,ug/L. These results are further summarized in the tables below. SAC186.09 11 City of Ukiah m m em m > Ii Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Based on the reported VOC detections, it appears that impacts are present adjacent to the leachate collection ponds (well 92-1), near the northwest extent of the Landfill (wells 90-3 and 90-4) and near the north central extent of the Landfill (well 90-5). The impacts identified are present in the alluvial deposits encountered in wells 92-1,90-3, and 90-4, and in the continental deposits in well 90-5. No alluvial deposits are present in the area of well 90-5. As shown on the above tables, although these VOCs have been reported in groundwater, the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for groundwater established by the State have rarely been exceeded. In addition, Fresh Water Aquatic Life Protection Standards have not been exceeded in any of the wells (CVRWQCB, 1995). The MCLs for chloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane have not been exceeded in any of the wells. The MCL for benzene was exceeded once in April 1993 in well 90-5. The MCL has not been exceeded for cis-l,2-dichloroethylene for well 92-1, and has not been exceeded since April 1993 in well 90-3, since January 1992 in well 90-4, and since January 1993 in well 90-5. The MCL for vinyl chloride has not been exceeded in well 90-4 since April 1995, and in well 92-1 since February 1995. During the latest round of groundwater sampling, none of the constituents of concern were reported in well 90-4, and only trace levels of cis-l,2-dichloroethylene were reported in wells 90-3 and 92-1. Well 90-5 reported detections of chloroethane, cis-l,2- dichloroethane and vinyl chloride during the last sampling event. Vinyl chloride detections in this well exceeded the primary MCL. Thus, with the exception of vinyl chloride, the MCLs have not been exceeded since early 1993 in any of the monitoring wells located along the northern margin of the Landfill. Although the VOC impacts are Iow and, with the exception of vinyl chloride, do not exceed the MCLs, the RWQCB has directed the City of Ukiah to prepare a Corrective Action Plan. This Corrective Action Plan is mandated because any detectable concentration of VOCs exceeds the WQPSs established by the RWQCB. Section 6.0 of this report discusses potentially feasible corrective action measures for the VOC impacts, including the No-Action alternative. s^c~86.o~ 1 3 cih, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 3.0 FEASIBILITY OF LEACHATE AND GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION Due to the VOC impacts in groundwater, and the absence of information on leachate within the Landfill, an investigation for the presence of leachate and an evaluation for the potential of extraction was conducted. The investigation focused on areas which exhibited moisture prior to landfilling and areas of past leachate seeps based on observations of City of Ukiah employees. In addition, an evaluation of groundwater hydraulic conditions was conducted. This evaluation included two short-term pumping tests and an assessment of potential capture zones and flow rates for potential groundwater extraction wells or horizontal interceptor drains. The results of the leachate and groundwater extraction evaluation are presented below. 3.1 LEACHATE WELL INSTALLATION As part of this study, three wells were installed within the Landfill to evaluate the potential presence of leachate, and, if present, to evaluate the feasibility of extracting leachate from the Landfill. Locations of the wells were selected based on information supplied by current and former Landfill employees, review of previous reports, review of historic topographic maps of the Landfill, and review of historic aerial photographs. Landfill employees and historic topographic maps indicated that groundwater seeps had been present along certain areas of the hillslope within the Landfill area. These seeps were located along small drainages (swales) which dissected the hillside. The largest of these seeps was reportedly located southeast of well 90-5, as shown on Figure 3-1. This figure shows the topography of the area prior to landfilling superimposed on the current topography. As shown on the figure, a small hillside swale and drainage extended from the crest of the hillside north to the former channel of the unnamed seasonal creek. Based on the reported historic conditions and locations of seeps in the existing Landfill face, three wells (LW-1, LW-2, and LW-3) were installed. These wells were installed in areas at or near the axes of three small drainages which existed prior to landfilling. The wells were also installed to intercept the former unnamed seasonal creek along the northerly extent of the Landfill (Figure 3-1). These locations were deemed to be topographic lows where leachate would be expected to accumulate, if present. Additionally, these areas were selected to evaluate whether leachate or groundwater was present within the former creek channel. The wells were installed using hollow-stem auger drilling methods. Auger cuttings were logged to characterize the landfilled materials. Drive samples were collected through augers near the SAC186.09 14 cih, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill base of the refuse to confirm the base of landfill refuse. Approximately four to five feet of landfill cover was present overlying refuse at each location. The Landfill refuse encountered in each of the boreholes was highly decomposed to a compost-type consistency. The majority of the Landfill refuse and interim cover appeared to be damp with some localized moist areas. Free moisture was observed at the base of the refuse in LW-2 and free moisture was noted near the fill/native soil interface in LW-3. No free moisture was observed in LW-1. No methane was detected during drilling in any of the three boreholes. However, methane did accumulate in the boreholes after wells were constructed. After penetration through the base of the Landfill was confirmed, a 4-inch-diameter monitoring well was constructed in each borehole. The base of each well was placed slightly below the base of refuse so that the maximum thickness of leachate present could be measured. The three wells were constructed utilizing 0.020-inch slotted well screen and blank Schedule 40 PVC casing. The screened intervals of the wells were surrounded with sorted sand and the remaining annulus was filled with a cement bentonite grout. Each well was then covered by an above- ground steel monument. Logs of the borings and well construction diagrams are presented in Appendix B. Additionally, four stream gauges were installed in the unnamed seasonal creek for future evaluation of the interrelationship between groundwater levels in existing wells, leachate levels in new wells, and water levels in the creek. The stream gauges, which were installed in the creek bed adjacent to wells 90-6, 90-5, 90-4, and 92-1, consist of steel pipes driven into the base of the creek bed. A stadia rod is attached to each pipe to assess water levels within the creek. The elevation of each location was surveyed relative to mean sea level. Unfortunately, these gauges were only recently installed and no data have been generated at this time. Future monitoring of these stream gauges, and comparison with the groundwater and leachate elevations will allow an evaluation of groundwater, leachate, and stream hydraulic interaction. 3.2 LEACHATE BAILDOWN TESTS Following leachate well installation, bail down tests were conducted to evaluate if pumpable quantities of leachate could be extracted from the wells. Prior to conducting the bail down tests initial leachate levels were measured in each well. LW-1 was found to be dry. LW-2 contained approximately 2.7 feet of leachate, and LW-3 contained approximately 0.7 foot of leachate. During the LW-2 bail down test, 4 gallons of leachate was removed over a 24 minute period causing a total drawdown of approximately 1.2 feet. One and a half hours after bailing was S^C186.09 1 5 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill terminated, the leachate had recovered to 90 percent of its original level. During the LW-3 bail down test 0.5 gallon of leachate was removed over a 8-minute period causing a total drawdown of approximately 0.34 feet. One hour after bailing was terminated, leachate had recovered to 75 percent of its original level. The absence of leachate in LW-1, the minimal thickness of the leachate in LW-2 and LW-3, and the slow leachate recovery rates suggest that there is minimal leachate within the Landfill at this time, and extraction of the leachate is not practical at the present time. Continued monitoring of leachate levels throughout the winter season is necessary to determine if the leachate thickness increases seasonally to levels where leachate extraction may be possible. 3.3 AQUIFER TESTING This section presents a discussion of limited aquifer testing conducted in the wells at the northern toe of the Landfill. A summary of previous aquifer testing results is provided, as well as an analysis of potential capture zones and flow rates associated with potential groundwater extraction wells and horizontal interceptor drains. 3.3.1 Previous Aquifer Testing During previous investigation activities, slug tests were performed in five wells (90-2, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, and 90-6) to estimate transmissivity Gl') and hydraulic conductivity (K) of the shallow water bearing zone at the northerly extent of the Landfill (EBA, 1993). Wells 90-3 and 90-4 are completed within alluvial deposits and wells 90-2, 90-5 and 90-6 are completed in the continental basin deposits. The resulting estimate of T and K are summarized below. Previous Slug Test Results Monitoring Thickness K K Well T (ft2/day) (ft) (ft/day) (cm/s) 90-2 0.56 7.0 0.079 2.8 x 10.5 90-3 0.56 12.3 0.045 1.6 x 10-5 90-4 5.95 13.1 0.45 1.6 x 10-4 90-5 0.56 16.1 0.035 1.2 x 10-5 90-6 0.28 13.1 0.021 7.5 x 106 s^c~86.o~ 1 6 ci~, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Slug test results indicate that the hydraulic conductivity for four of the five wells is in the 10.2 ft/day or 10.5 cm/s range, while the hydraulic conductivity estimated from the 90-4 slug test was approximately one order of magnitude higher. The higher hydraulic conductivity estimates for 90-4 are consistent with the higher sand content encountered in this area of the alluvial deposits, as opposed to the higher clay content encountered in the continental deposits in which 90-2, 90-5 and 90-6 are completed. 3.3.2 Aquifer Pumping Tests Two short duration constant rate aquifer pumping tests were performed as part of the current study to further evaluate T and K of the shallow water-bearing zone along the northern toe of the Landfill. Wells 90-4 and 90-5 were selected as pumping wells to further assess the end member hydraulic conductivities observed in the slug tests. Wells 90-4 and 90-5 are considered representative of stratigraphic conditions of the wells completed in the coarser-grained portions of alluvial deposits and the finer-grained portions of the continental deposits. During the 90-4 pumping test, a flow rate of approximately 1.4 gallons per minute (gpm) was maintained for a duration of 120 minutes. Water levels were monitored in the pumping well and in observation well 90-3, located approximately 60 feet south from the pumping well (Figure 3-1). Drawdown and recovery water levels were monitored electronically using a data logger and pressure transducers. During the 90-5 pumping test a flow rate of approximately 0.3 gpm was maintained for a duration of 65 minutes. Water levels were monitored in the pumping well and observation well 92-3, located approximately 120 feet to the northwest of the pumping well on the opposite side of the creek (Figure 3-1). Drawdown and recovery water levels were monitored electronically using a data logger and pressure transducers. Drawdown and recovery curves for the 90-4 and 90-5 pumping tests are provided in Appendix C. During the 90-4 pumping test, a maximum drawdown of 10.3 feet was observed in 90-4 and a maximum drawdown of 1.1 feet was observed in 90-3. The available drawdown in the pumping well during the 90-4 test was 12.5 feet. Observed drawdowns in 90-4 appeared to stabilize after 15 minutes of pumping. During the 90-5 pumping test, a maximum drawdown of 11.5 feet was observed in 90-5 and no response was observed in 92-3. The available drawdown in the pumping well during the 90-5 test was 12.6 feet. Observed drawdown in 90-5 appeared to stabilize after approximately 30 minutes of pumping. Analysis of drawdown data s^c~86.o9 1 7 citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill was conducted using the Jacobs straight line method and Neuman unconfined method. Recovery data was analyzed using the Theis recovery method. Estimates of T and K are provided below. Aquifer Pumping Test Results T Thickness K K Well Method (ft2/day) (ft) (ft/day) (cm/s) 90-4 Jacobs 7.9 13.1 0.60 2.1 x 10-4 90-4 Neuman 6.7 13.1 0.51 1.8 x 10-4 90-4 Theis Recovery 5.6 13.1 0.43 1.5 x 10-4 90-3 Neuman 6.5 I 12.3 I 0.53 I 1.9 x 10-4 90-5 Jacobs 1.9 16.1 0.12 4.2 x 10's 90-5 Neuman 1.4 16.1 0.087 3.1 x 10's 90-5 Theis Recovery 0.9 16.1 0.056 2.0 x 10.5 An average transmissivity of 6.7 ft2/day and an average hydraulic conductivity of 0.5 fi/day (1.0 x 10-4cm/sec) were estimated from response to the 90-4 constant rate pumping test. An average transmissivity of 1.4 ft2/day and an average hydraulic conductivity of 0.09 fi/day (3 x lO'Scm/sec) were estimated from response to the 90-5 constant rate pumping test. Estimates of T and K for the 90-4 constant rate pumping test are comparable to 90-4 slug test results. Estimates of T and K from 90-3 response to 90-4 pumping are approximately one order of magnitude higher than slug test results for 90-3. However, T and K estimates from 90-3 are consistent with higher values anticipated for wells completed in the more permeable portions of the alluvial deposits. Estimates of T and K for the 90-5 pumping test are approximately 2.5 times higher than slug test results; however, this is within the expected range of difference between slug and pumping tests. Therefore, because the pumping tests and slug tests are in general agreement it is assumed that the slug test data is representative for the conditions surrounding wells which were not tested by pumping. 3.3.3 Analysis of Capture Zone Width Based on transmissivity values estimated from the two constant rate aquifer pumping tests, an evaluation was conducted to assess potential capture zone widths. The evaluation was intended to provide feasibility level estimates of capture zone dimensions for the purpose of extracting S^C186.09 18 Ci~/ of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill VOC impacted groundwater. This evaluation provides a reasonable estimation of capture zone; however, additional hydrogeologic evaluation should be conducted for design level estimates of capture zone dimensions. Radius of pumping influence was initially evaluated using the distance/drawdown method for wells 90-3 and 90-4. This simple evaluation shows a radius of influence of approximately 100 feet, based on pumping of well 90-4. Capture width was then estimated using the equations presented by McWhorther and Sunada (1997) and Javandel and Tsang (1986). Using this method, the capture zone width can be estimated using the following equation: Ymax -- Q/Ti. Where Ymax is the maximum width of the capture zone upgradient of the pumping well, Q is the pumping rate, T is the aquifer transmissivity, and i is the hydraulic gradient. Capture zone width at the well can be estimated using the relationship: Ywell -- Ymax/2. The maximum sustainable flow rate was constrained using the Theis equation by not allowing the drawdown in the pumping well to exceed 12 feet after two weeks of pumping. An estimate of 0.20 was used for specific yield. Maximum sustainable flow rates (Qmax) estimated for T values of 6.7 and 1.4 ft2/day, are 0.4 and 0.095, respectively. The hydraulic gradient (i) along the northern portion of the Landfill is reportedly 0.05 (EBA, 1993). Based on estimates of T, i, and Qmax, capture zone estimates are as follows: Pumping Test [ T (ft2/day) Qmax (gpm) I Ymax (ft) [ Ywell (ft) [ 90-4 6.7 0.4 164 82 90-5 1.4 0.095 200 100 ..... Estimated capture zone dimensions are half widths. Given the constraints of the creek with respect to potential extraction well locations (i.e., there is limited distance between the creek and the edge of the Landfill), the Ywell capture zone widths were used to estimate extraction well spacing. These estimates suggest that extraction wells should be spaced approximately 80 s^c~ 86.09 19 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill to 100 feet apart along the perimeter road at the toe of the Landfill. If extraction well locations were not constrained by the presence of the creek, potential extraction wells could be placed further downgradient and well spacing could be estimated based on values of Ymax. It should be noted that the information available for this preliminary evaluation was not sufficient to account for the potential boundary effects of the nearby creek. The boundary effects of the creek may act to increase maximum sustainable flow rates, and reduce capture zone width. Thus, extraction wells may need to be placed at a closer spacing. To evaluate these effects, pilot-scale aquifer testing is required. This should be conducted prior to design of the selected groundwater remedy, as appropriate. 3.3.4 Analysis of Horizontal Drain Flow Rate As part of the feasibility level evaluation, an evaluation of the potential flow through an interceptor trench or horizontal well along the toe of the Landfill was also conducted. This was conducted to compare effectiveness of groundwater extraction rates from a horizontal drain with those of vertical wells. Steady state groundwater flow to a tunnel or horizontal drain can be roughly estimated using the relationship. Qo-- 2rrKHo/2.31og(2Ho/r); Where K is the hydraulic conductivity, Ho is the depth of the tunnel or drain below static groundwater, and r is the effective radius of the tunnel or drain pipe (Goodman, et. al., 1965). The estimated inflow per 100 feet of drain pipe with an effective radius of one foot placed 5 feet below static groundwater is 0.06 to 0.36 gpm for K values of 0.09 and 0.5 ft/day, respectively. These flow rates would be slightly larger than those derived from a comparable vertical well configuration. The horizontal drain can be assumed to intercept all water within the pathway of the drain to the depth that the drain is installed. SAC186.09 20 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action IHeasures Ukiah Landfill 4.0 LEACHATE POND RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING This section presents the preliminary engineering design for reconstruction and lining of the existing leachate holding ponds immediately west of the Landfill. Two pond configurations were developed: (1) a large evaporation pond that can contain and provide evaporation for all incoming leachate under normal climactic conditions, and (2) an alternative smaller pond that requires periodic discharge to accommodate the surplus leachate/precipitation that enters the pond. Also included is a brief feasibility analysis of providing leachate disposal through installation of a lift station and pipeline to connect the pond to an existing sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. The design basis, conceptual design for pond systems, and a preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes are discussed below. Figures 4-1 through 4-6 are conceptual design drawings developed for this study. 4.1 DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND BASIS The purpose of reconstructing the existing pond system is to comply with WDRs and applicable Chapter 15 regulatory requirements for design and operation of waste management units. These requirements are intended to control discharge of leachate constituents to groundwater or the creek due to infiltration and potential pond overtopping. Specific design objectives for reconstruction of the leachate holding pond are: Collect and store leachate generated by rainfall onto the Landfill tipping area and leachate seepage interception system; Minimize potential for infiltration and overflow; and Provide leachate volume reduction through evaporation during the dry season to minimize need for off-site disposal. The design basis was developed from the following sources: A CAD-based topographic survey map provided by the City of Ukiah; Information on the proposed leachate pipeline alignment developed by the City of Ukiah (see Figure 4-1); Observations of Landfill site characteristics made during a site visit guided by Public Works Department staff; Discussions with Public Works Department senior staff; S^C186.09 21 Cih, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Landfill tipping area assumptions used in the Report of Waste Discharge (EBA Wastechnologies, 1993); Local precipitation data presented in WDRs Order No. 94-123; Chemical quality data for pond liquid samples presented in a recent leachate treatability study (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 1994); Chapter 15 requirements for design of waste management units; Site-specific requirements specified in the WDRs; and Discussions with North Coast RWQCB staff. 4.2 EVAPORATION POND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN The conceptual design for reconstruction of the leachate holding pond includes four key elements: Pond grading and levee configuration; Pond emergency drainage structures; Liner system; and Optional liner protection systems. These elements are discussed below and depicted on Figures 4-1 through 4-4. The proposed pond grading and levees shown on Figure 4-2 consolidate the two existing leachate holding ponds into one single pond. This conceptual design maximizes pond capacity within the available area considering topography, depth to groundwater, and assumed maximum permissible side slope. The western levee of the existing overflow pond would be raised to the approximate current elevation of the eastern levee of the existing primary pond. All cut and fill slopes would be a maximum of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The total pond depth as shown varies from 15 to 18 feet below the crest of the levee. Combined with a total surface area of 30,500 square feet, the proposed grading provides 200,000 cubic feet of storage capacity with 3 feet of freeboard. The proposed grading increases the total holding capacity of the pond system without substantially increasing the direct rainfall catchment area. The increased capacity would allow for storage in excess of the maximum annual leachate generation volume based on the historical annual precipitation total of 61.61 inches. Pond S^C186.09 2 2 city of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill capacity, leachate generation and estimated evaporation based on the proposed grading is summarized on Figure 4-2. As shown, it is expected that the average annual total volume of 120,000 cubic feet of water could be evaporated during a typical year. However, should the working face area expand and/or if the historical maximum annual precipitation were to occur (as was the case in 1994-1995), off-site leachate disposal could be required to empty the pond prior to the start of the next rainy season. Based on the preliminary grading plan and earthwork sections (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3), reconstruction of the pond will require approximately 4,900 cubic yards of excavation at the pond site and 9,200 cubic yards of select levee fill. Based on our understanding of site soil conditions, soil obtained during excavation should be suitable for use as select levee fill and sufficient suitable material should be available from the on-site soil borrow pit to achieve the required additional 4,300 cubic yards of fill. Based on the Ukiah Landfill WDRs, the reconstructed pond must meet Chapter 1 5 requirements for a Class II surface impoundment. The regulations generally require a double liner with a leak detection system; however, the North Coast RWQCB has indicated that they will consider an engineered alternative lining system (North Coast RWQCB, 1995). The proposed lining system consists of an HDPE liner underlain by a compacted soil liner constructed using native subgrade soil. Due to the short-term life span for the proposed pond, a continuous leak detection system is not proposed. The proposed lining system consists of one layer of 60-mil high density polyethylene (HPDE) underlain by a non-woven cushion geotextile to protect the liner from puncture by angular stones which may be present in the subgrade soil. Prior to installation of the cushion geotextile, the upper eight inches of subgrade material would be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted to provide a firm, stable, Iow permeability subgrade surface that constitutes the second liner. Leak detection systems, if any, would be limited to discrete sump collection areas at points where piping penetrates the geosynthetic liner. HDPE liners are manufactured with a carbon black additive to retard ultraviolet degradation due to exposure to direct sunlight, and prorated materials warranties against failure due to weathering are available with terms up to 20 years. It should be noted that the liner industry is moving toward shorter warranty periods, and, for a small project such as this one, the extended warranty could add significantly to the cost. The cost estimate presented in the next section includes an s^c~86.o9 2 3 ci~/of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action A,leasures Ukiah Landfill optional surcharge for a 20-year prorated material and installation warranty. The cost-benefit of specifying a long-term warranty should be evaluated further during final design. Alternatively, soil cover of three to six inches thick is sometimes used to prevent prolonged sun exposure. A six-inch thick soil cover for side slopes was estimated as a separate, optional liner protection system. Based on conversations with City of Ukiah Public Works Department staff, the existing leachate holding pond accumulates sediment from tipping area leachate runoff. The pond will therefore also act as a sedimentation basin. A geomembrane liner would be vulnerable to tearing if excavation equipment is used to remove sediment from the pond. If dredging or excavation equipment will be used to remove sediment, a liner protection system consisting of concrete armoring is recommended. This optional liner protection would cover the bottom of the pond and extend up the side slopes sufficiently to contain one year's accumulation of sediment. 4.3 EVAPORATION POND PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE A cost estimate was developed for the pond reconstruction conceptual design described above and shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-4. The cost estimate, presented in Appendix D, includes direct capital costs for the basic design and the two optional liner protection systems. Indirect capital costs for engineering design, development of a Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan for lining system construction, permitting, construction management, and implementation of the CQA Plan are listed separately. A 15% percent contingency was added to the direct capital costs. The cost estimate is summarized in the table below. COST ESTIMATE- LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND RECONSTRUCTION Description I Estimated COst Direct Capital Costs Earthwork, Lining, and Appurtenant Structures $149,000 Optional Soil Cover (Slopes) 13,000 Optional Concrete Lining Protection (Bottom and 33,000 Lower Slopes) Optional 20-Year Prorated Materials and $30,000 Installation Warranty 15% Contingency 22,000 s^c~a6.09 24 ci~ of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill I Description I Estimated Cost Indirect Capital Costs Engineering Design and CQA Plan Development 30,000 Permitting 8,000 Construction Management 1 5,000 TOTAL (EXCLUDING OPTIONAL SYSTEMS) $224,000 4.4 ALTERNATIVES TO EVAPORATION POND RECONSTRUCTION Design of an evaporation basin involves consideration of the volume of liquid generated, local climactic conditions, and evaporative surface area. Due to the need to maximize evaporative surface area, a significant portion of the liquid to be contained and evaporated will be that which falls directly on the pond as rain. If, however, evaporation is not the sole means of wastewater disposal, a much smaller pond can be utilized. For instance, for the 30,000-square foot evaporation pond discussed in Section 4~. above, direct rainfall onto the pond would account for 75% of the total liquid generated each year. In contrast, a shallower 10,000-square foot pond would be adequate to contain about 50% of the total liquids generated by the mean annual precipitation. The disadvantage is that complete evaporation of the liquid would not typically occur, and a supplemental form of leachate disposal would be needed. The conceptual design of a smaller leachate collection pond includes four key elements: Design of small leachate pond; Liner system; Lift station; and Sanitary sewer hookup. These elements are discussed below. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 depict one possible alternative to the evaporation pond. The small leachate holding pond is 11 feet deep with 3:1 side slopes, and has a capacity of 28,500 cubic feet at the 3-foot freeboard elevation. With this option, based on a pond surface area of 10,000 square feet and a Landfill tipping area of 10,000 square feet, approximately 59,000 cubic feet of SAC186.09 2 5 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action A4easures Ukiah Landfill leachate and precipitation would enter the pond annually, assuming an average year of precipitation. Earthwork, lining systems, and outfall/drainage structures would be similar to the larger evaporation pond design. Additional facilities would be constructed to allow discharge of unevaporated leachate/precipitation mixture to an existing sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. Due to sewer and POTW capacities, discharges to the sanitary sewer would be at limited flow rates during off-peak discharge periods. Leachate would drain through the pond outlet structure into a sewage lift station, and from there it would be pumped into a 5,000-foot pipeline laid on the alignment shown on Figure 4-1. The new pipeline would be connected to an existing 10-inch sanitary sewer pipe in Vichy Springs Road. A variety of lift stations are available as prefabricated systems with either a wet or dry pit configuration. For the purpose of th is study, a fiberglass wet pit system with stainless steel pump mounting and guide rail to facilitate pump maintenance was assumed. All pipe and fittings inside the lift station would be stainless steel, as would the pump mechanisms. Compared to most lift stations, this application has an unusual combination of Iow flow and high head due to the sewer discharge flow restrictions and the 230-foot elevation change. The pump would therefore have a pump curve that is similar to a typical well pump, as opposed to a conventional lift station pump. The pipeline would consist of 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe buried approximately 4 feet below grade. Single-phase power for the pump and appurtenant electrical components would be provided by setting an electrical pole and bringing in an overhead power line. An automatic float-control pump switch would ensure that the minimum allowable freeboard of 3 feet is always maintained in the holding pond. The Landfill operator could also pre-program off- peak discharge as needed based on available freeboard and anticipated precipitation events. An optional telemetry system would automatically notify the operator of pump failure. Emergency overflow capacity could be provided by connecting the new lined pond to the existing, unlined overflow pond. A cost estimate for the small leachate pond with a lift station and sanitary sewer connection are presented in Appendix D, and summarized in the table below. s^c~ 86.o~ 26 ci~/of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill COST ESTIMATE -- LEACHATE HOLDING POND WITH LIFT STATION AND SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION Description Estimated Cost Direct Capital Costs Earthwork, Lining, and Appurtenant Structures $225,000 Optional Soil Cover (Slopes) 6,000 Optional Concrete Lining Protection (Bottom and 8,000 Lower Slopes) Optional 20-Year Prorated Materials and 30,000 Instal lation Warranty 15% Contingency 34,000 Indirect Capital Costs Engineering Design and CQA Plan Development 45,000 Permitting 10,000 Construction Management and CQA 15,000 TOTAL (EXCLUDING OPTIONAL SYSTEMS) $329,000 Another alternative would be to install sufficient tankerage on-site to accommodate leachate runoff from the tipping area. At the current tipping area size of 10,000 square feet, the mean annual precipitation would generate about 30,000 cubic feet (220,000 gallons) of leachate. At an assumed off-peak maximum sewer discharge rate of 20 gpm, it would take a total of 185 hours to discharge the mean annual volume of leachate generated at the tipping area. The optimal total tankerage volume would need to be assessed based on historical precipitation patterns and firm sewer discharge criteria. If prolonged daily discharge of 20,000 gallons is permitted during the rainy season, this alternative might be economically attractive. Issues of space and double containment per the WDRs would need to be addressed prior to implementation. The cost for implementing this alternative was not estimated because prolonged, relatively high flow discharges to the sanitary sewer are assumed to be undesirable (City of Ukiah, 1995). s^c~86.o~ 2 7 tiff of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 5.0 LEACHATE SOURCES AND CONTROLS Historic information, hydrologic data, and water-quality data collected to date indicate that leachate has impacted shallow groundwater along the northern toe of the Landfill. Specific mechanisms by which leachate is generated at the Landfill and subsequently impacts groundwater quality are not completely understood. Potential mechanisms include: Exposure of the working face of the Landfill to surface water from runoff and rainfall which, in turn, allows the water to mix with the refuse; Infiltration of precipitation through the Landfill interim cover into the underlying landfill mass; Upward seasonal seepage of moisture from the soils at the base of the Landfill into the Landfill material (artesian conditions); and Infiltration of leachate through the natural clay liner of the leachate storage ponds. The City of Ukiah is currently evaluating and/or implementing mitigative measures designed to limit the leachate generation identified with each of the above sources. Because the base of the Landfill is not lined, it is not practical to limit the seasonal upward seepage of moisture into the base of the Landfill. Nor is it practical to limit the downward infiltration of leachate through the base of the Landfill. With these practical limitations in mind, the mitigation approach associated with each of the above potential sources of groundwater impacts is discussed below. 5.1 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION AT THE WORKING FACE Leachate generation at the working face is currently being minimized in three ways: by maintaining a small working face area exposed to the elements at any one time; by using temporary diversion ditches to prevent run-on from adjacent areas; and by promptly removing precipitation that has contacted the working face. The potential for leachate generation is minimized by reducing the working face area and the time that precipitation is allowed to contact the working face. Drainage ditches extend around the working face to minimize runon onto exposed landfill material. Precipitation that does become leachate by contact with the working face is collected and directed to a pipeline which discharges to the leachate holding pond. S^C186.09 28 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 5.2 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION BY LANDFILL CAPPING Existing information indicates that some seasonal seepage occurs at specific areas currently capped with an intermediate soil cover. The source of the leachate springs is not certain, but may be associated with infiltration of precipitation through the interim cap. Alternatively, the seepage may be associated with the upward flux of moisture through the base of the Landfill, as discussed in Section 5.3, below. The leachate springs that occur are intercepted through the use of a network of horizontal drains that transport the leachate to the leachate collection drain which runs along the northern perimeter road of the Landfill. The leachate collection pipe discharges to the leachate holding pond. California landfill regulations require placement of a Iow-permeability cap over the Landfill. The City of Ukiah has installed a 4-foot-thick soil base material cover over completed landfilled areas and will be placing a final cap over the Landfill within the next five to six years. Placement of the cap will reduce infiltration of precipitation and the potential for leachate generation. 5.3 LIMITING LEACHATE GENERATION CONTROL OF SEEPAGE AT THE LANDFILL BASE Containing leachate within the Landfill, as well as preventing moisture from entering the Landfill mass from upward seepage from the underlying soil, is difficult to achieve for an unlined Landfill. Many landfills constructed during the same time period as the Ukiah Landfill lack impermeable liners and underdrains. Due to the difficulty and hazards associated with excavation of refuse, these older existing landfills cannot be practically fitted with groundwater drain systems or with under-drain based leachate collection and removal systems (LCRSs). In these cases, collection and removal of leachate becomes the focus of mitigation efforts. The feasibility of leachate collection and removal at the Ukiah Landfill was recently evaluated, as discussed in Section 3.0. The three existing leachate wells are positioned in strategic areas where leachate could be detected and, if feasible, removed. The initial results (obtained in November, 1995) indicate that very little leachate is being generated. However, continued monitoring of the leachate wells is recommended, and leachate extraction may be feasible during the wet season. 5.4 LIMITING INFILTRATION THROUGH LEACHATE HOLDING POND The existing leachate holding ponds were reportedly lined with native Iow-permeability soil, but may leak as a result of desiccation and cracking. An option to line the leachate holding pond SAC186.09 2 9 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill with a geomembrane liner is discussed in Section 4.0. Installing a geomembrane liner will effectively limit potential leakage from the leachate holding pond. SAC186.09 3 0 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 6.0 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION MEASURES FEASIBILITY STUDY This section presents a feasibility study of corrective action measures to address groundwater impacts along the northern toe of the Landfill. As discussed in Section 2.0, VOCs have been detected along the northern toe of the Landfill, and therefore exceed the Water Quality Protection Standards defined in Section 2.0. These VOCs are vinyl chloride; chloroethane; cis- 1,2- dichloroethylene; 1,1- dichloroethane; and benzene. Impacts have been detected in groundwater monitoring wells 92-1, 90-3, 90-4, and 90-5. As discussed in Section 2.0, these VOC impacts are very Iow and rarely exceed the MCLs. General water quality indicators are also important in evaluating potential remedial technologies. Monitoring results for impacted wells as well as upgradient and crossgradient wells and upstream surface water indicate that the groundwater and surface water are both naturally hard and contain high levels of dissolved solids. A variety of remedial technologies are selected based on their general applicability in addressing VOC groundwater impacts. These technologies are screened for overall effectiveness, implementability (technical and administrative), and relative cost. The technologies which pass the preliminary screening are later used to develop corrective action alternatives. Ten corrective action alternatives, including the No-Action alternative, are developed using the selected remedial technologies. Each alternative includes one or more technologies as needed to completely address the identified impacts. A conceptual design is presented for each alternative, and a preliminary cost estimate based on the conceptual design is included. The corrective action alternatives are then analyzed in more detail, leading to recommendations for the preferred corrective action alternative. These recommendations are further discussed in Section 7.0. 6.1 PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGY AND PROCESS SCREENING Several applicable remedial technologies are considered for use at the Ukiah Landfill. General categories of technologies considered include monitoring, containment, ex situ treatment, in situ treatment, and discharge (disposal) options. The technologies are screened using three criteria: Effectiveness m the ability to address the specific constituents of concern in the aquifer and/or ability to meet applicable treatment standards; SAC186.09 31 citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Implementability- administrative and technical feasibility; and Relative Cost. Remedial technologies which pass the screening are used to develop corrective action alternatives. Technology screening is discussed below and summarized in Table 6-1. 6.1.1 Groundwater Containment Technologies The purpose of groundwater containment technologies is to control movement and dispersion of the impacts. A cutoff wall to provide hydrau l ic segregation between the shallow groundwater and the creek was considered. Conceptually, this would consist of a Iow permeability vertical barrier installed from the top of the groundwater table to the base of the impacted water-bearing zone. Although hydraulic isolation would be desirable, this technology was not retained for use in developing alternative for two reasons: (1) the average depth to groundwater is too high to make this technology economically attractive; and (2) perhaps more importantly, there does not appear to be a continuous Iow-permeability, confining layer into which the barrier wall could be keyed, thereby restricting groundwater flow from going under and around the barrier. These conditions indicate that passive containment/treatment options such as funnel and gate may not be feasible. Extraction well technologies are used to provide hydraulic containment, capture the impacts, and/or bring impacted groundwater to the surface for treatment or to remove constituents of concern from groundwater. Two general types of extraction technologies were considered: groundwater extraction using vertical wells, and groundwater extraction using a horizontal (french) drain. Vertical extraction wells are a commonly used technology and should provide effective capture of impacted groundwater. Vertical wells are technically and administratively implementable, and vertical well extraction systems can generally be constructed at a moderate cost relative to other extraction technologies. A horizontal drain approximately five feet below the water table along the toe of the Landfill was also considered for capturing impacted groundwater based on the preliminary capture analysis discussed in Section 3.3.4. The technology is proven, but can be technically difficult to accomplish at depths in excess of ten feet (for trench installation) or when gravels may be encountered (for horizontal boring installation). These types of conditions can exist at the Ukiah s^c~86.o9 3 2 citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Landfill, and would therefore make this technology relatively expensive. The groundwater flow rate for a horizontal drain system could significantly exceed the groundwater flow rate associated with vertical wells. Thus, associated treatment costs could increase substantially. The horizontal drain technology was therefore screened out. 6.1.2 Ex Situ Treatment Technologies One or more ex situ treatment technologies could be used to remove VOCs from extracted groundwater prior to discharge. Air stripping, spray aeration, aqueous phase granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, vapor phase GAC adsorption, and treatment at the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) were all considered. Air stripping is generally very effective in removing VOCs from water. The relatively high TDS in groundwater at the Landfill site would likely require either an additional system to prevent scaling or more frequent cleaning of the stripper trays. The cost of air stripping systems is moderate compared to other ex situ treatment technologies for removal of VOCs. Air stripping was therefore retained for use in developing corrective action alternatives. Spray aeration of VOCs would involve pumping extracted groundwater through a series of nozzles or sprinkler heads into the existing leachate holding pond. VOCs would be volatilized by passing through the spray nozzle and discharged to ambient air. Evaporation of water may reduce the total volume of water to be disposed of, depending on the total groundwater extraction rate and the time of year. This technology is simple, but would require some testing to evaluate its effectiveness in removing VOCs. Permission to discharge VOCs directly to the air would need to be obtained from the local Air Quality Management District (AQMD), but this type of permit is expected to be obtainable (Mendocino County AQMD, 1995). Assuming that subsequent discharge of treated groundwater is not problematic, this would be one of the least expensive methods of removing VOCs from extracted groundwater. Therefore, passive volatilization was also retained for use in developing corrective action alternatives. Aqueous phase GAC adsorption is also proven and somewhat effective for the constituents of concern. However, the presence of chloroethane and vinyl chloride would increase the carbon use rates and therefore the treatment cost. Use of GAC is technically and administratively implementable, so aqueous phase GAC adsorption was retained. SAC186.09 3 3 Cih' of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Vapor phase GAC adsorption would be used to treat off-gas from an air stripper only if direct discharge of off-gas is not allowed. This technology is proven and generally cost-effective. However it was screened out because off-gas treatment is expected to be unnecessary based on annual air emissions estimates and discussions with local AQMD staff (Mendocino County AQMD, 1995). Treatment of groundwater at the local POTW would be effective for the Iow concentrations of VOCs expected in extracted groundwater. Depending on the total groundwater discharge rate, implementability (ability to obtain a permit from the POTW) should be fair to poor. Poor implementability is associated with continuous discharge rates in excess of about 5 gpm due to issues sanitary sewer and/or POTW hydraulic capacity. The cost of POTW treatment could be relatively high, depending on total discharge rate and wastewater strength. Construction of a lift station and sanitary sewer connection to the closest existing sanitary sewer would also be required to implement POTW treatment. Lift station/sewer connection construction is considered under discharge technologies, below. POTW treatment was retained for use in developing corrective action alternatives based on its proven effectiveness and potentially reasonable cost. 6.1.3 In Situ Treatment Technologies Depending on the chemical constituents of concern and site-specific hydrogeologic conditions, in situ treatment technologies can be cost-effective compared to conventional pump/treat/ discharge systems. Air sparging and bioremediation in situ technologies were considered for inclusion in the corrective action alternatives. Air sparging can be generally effective in stripping VOCs from groundwater and, depending on the constituents of concern, can enhance natural biodegradation by improving the dissolved oxygen content of the groundwater. Soil vapor extraction would likely be required to remove the VOCs that were removed from groundwater and transferred to the overlying unsaturated zone. Vapor extraction is accomplished by applying a vacuum to one or more wells screened in the vadose zone above the impacted groundwater. The technical implementability of air sparging is uncertain. This is because the effectiveness of air sparging to strip chlorinated VOCs can be poor and because the associated biodegradation of certain chlorinated VOCs can be difficult. Costs to construct an air sparging system would be moderate relative to other technologies and pilot testing would be needed to ensure that full destruction of all VOCs present in groundwater is achievable. This technology was screened out due to the technical complexity and uncertainties. S^C186.09 3 4 Ci~/of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill It may be possible to biodegrade the chlorinated VOCs by sparging with an air stream that contains Iow concentrations of methane. The methane serves as a food source for a group of bacteria known as methanotrophs that are capable of degrading chlorinated organics through a cometabolism process. The cost of constructing such a system would be moderate compared to other technologies. For bioremediation to be effective, it must be capable of removing the entire range of chemical constituents in a relatively short time and distance. The physical site constraints at the Landfill require removal of VOCs in an area between the toe of the Landfill and the unnamed seasonal creek which is on the order of 50 feet downgradient. This is a relatively short distance for this technology to be considered effective. Therefore, this technology was screened out based on technical implementability concerns. 6.1.4 Discharge Options If groundwater is extracted for treatment, a means of disposing of the treated groundwater must be found. Three discharge options are considered: discharge to the nearby creek under an NPDES surface water discharge permit; aquifer reinjection; and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Screening of these discharge technologies is presented below. Discharge to the creek would require an NPDES permit issued by the North Coast RWQCB. The RWQCB has indicated that they prefer not to issue NPDES permits, but will consider it in the case of the Ukiah Landfill if other cost-effective options cannot be identified (North Coast RWQCB, 1995). Although the groundwater TDS and hardness is relatively high, this is apparently a natural phenomenon, and the RWQCB has indicated that further treatment to reduce TDS and hardness will not be required as a condition of discharge. Discharge to the creek would be the simplest, most effective, and least expensive means of treated groundwater disposal. This technology is retained for use in developing corrective action alternatives. Aquifer reinjection through groundwater injection wells would require approximately the same level of treatment as needed for surface water discharge. However, due to relatively Iow aquifer transmissivity, this technology would be technically difficult and relatively costly to implement. It was therefore screened out. Sanitary sewer discharge is generally an effective means of disposal if sewer hydraulic capacity is adequate and the POTW is willing to accept the discharge. In this case, sanitary sewer discharge would require construction of a lift station and approximately 5,000 feet of new pipeline to connect the Landfill site to the nearest existing sanitary sewer line in Vichy Springs S^C186.09 3 5 Ci~ of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action/Vleasures Ukiah Landfill Road. The administrative implementability of this technology is judged to be poor to good, depending on the desired groundwater discharge rate. The cost of implementing this technology is relatively high because of the distance and elevation change between the toe of the Landfill and the sanitary sewer, as well as POTW fees. If the City of Ukiah elects to construct the lift station and sanitary sewer connection to handle excess leachate in the leachate containment pond, the construction cost would be partially offset. This technology was retained for use in developing corrective action alternatives. 6.1.5 Summary of Technology Screening The following conclusions were made based on the remedial technology screening described above and summarized in Table 6-1: In situ treatment of the identified groundwater impacts would be technically difficult given the chemical constituents of concern and site-specific physical and hydrogeologic characteristics. Because of these technical complexities and the associated cost to resolve them, pursuit of in situ treatment is considered infeasible. Ex situ treatment of VOCs can be best achieved through one of four technologies: air stripping, spray aeration in the existing leachate pond, aqueous phase GAC adsorption, and treatment at the local POTW. Extraction of groundwater for subsequent ex situ treatment can be most cost- effectively achieved using vertical extraction wells. Options for discharge of treated groundwater are limited, especially if the discharge is constant and/or the flow rates are in excess of 5 gpm. 6.2 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES This section presents the development and screening of ten corrective action alternatives to address VOC groundwater impacts at the Ukiah Landfill site. The conceptual design for each alternative is described, and a preliminary cost estimate for capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs is included. Cost estimate spreadsheets for each alternative are presented in Appendix E. Detailed analysis of the corrective action alternatives is then presented. Based on available landfill construction information, site hydrogeology, location of existing monitoring wells, and historical groundwater monitoring data, two conceptual models of groundwater impacts were developed. Several corrective action alternatives pertinent to each S^C186.09 3 6 o~, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill conceptual model were then assembled from the screened technologies. The two conceptual models are explained below. The first model is based on the assumption that groundwater impacts detected in wells 92-1, 90-3, 90-4, and 90-5 represent three discrete source areas. This model is supported by the lack of consistency in compounds historically detected, and the lack of discernable plume migration trends. Groundwater corrective action would therefore focus on three areas: well 92-1, wells 90-3/90-4, and well 90-5. Based on short-term pumping tests performed by Dames & Moore in November 1995 (see Section 3.3) and data presented in previous reports, plume capture in these three areas is assumed to be achievable by installing a total of six extraction wells (two near each location) with a total pumping rate of 2 to 5 gpm. Alternatives based on this six-extraction- well model are termed "discrete extraction" alternatives for the purpose of this study. The second model is based on the assumption that there are similar groundwater impacts along the entire toe (northern boundary) of the Landfill. This model could be inferred based on general understanding of landfill environmental impacts combined with site-specific information regarding construction and operation of the Landfill; however, existing groundwater data do not support the model. Based on the same information cited above, it was assumed that capture of groundwater along the toe of the entire Landfill could be achieved using a total of twenty wells spaced approximately 200 feet apart. This spacing may represent a "best case" scenario, and should be confirmed by further aquifer testing prior to extraction system design. The extraction rate for corrective action alternatives based on this "continuous extraction" scenario would total approximately 10 to 20 gpm. The conceptual designs and estimated costs for a total of ten corrective action alternatives are presented below and summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. 6.2.1 Alternative I -- No-Action Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative, includes no active steps to control, remove, or treat the existing groundwater impacts. The current groundwater monitoring program would be continued indefinitely in accordance with Chapter 15 requirements for landfill post-closure monitoring. Selection of this alternative would require a determination .by the RWQCB that the detected impacts are not significant relative to the estimated cost of corrective action, and that they do not threaten to adversely affect human health or environmental quality. SAC186.09 3 7 Ci~, of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Current groundwater monitoring costs, including analytical testing and reporting, which must be continued for a minimum of thirty years past final closure of the Landfill, are assumed to be a part of each alternative. Therefore, for the purpose of this feasibility study, the annual O&M cost of Alternative 1 is $0. It is assumed that the current groundwater monitoring well network would be adequate, so no capital expenditures would be required. 6.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Limited-Action The limited-action option (Alternative 2) includes the following: 1) 2) 3) Further definition of the extent of groundwater impacts by installing additional monitoring wells; Assessment of the pathways of exposure to humans and the environment based on existing site conditions and the potential for impacts to migrate off-site and affect public and private water supply wells, and cause water quality degradation to the unnamed seasonal creek; and Development and implementation of a monitoring program to ensure that significant impacts do not develop in the future and that the current levels of impact do not increase. Implementation of the limited-action alternative could be feasible under the evolving State Water Resources Control Board containment zone policy. The containment concept is presented in amendments to Resolution No. 92-49, "Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup and Abatement under Section 13304 of the Water Code" (SWRCB, 1995). The amendment establishes conditions under which the RWQCB may establish designated containment zones for areas of groundwater where water quality objectives cannot be reasonably achieved. This option assumes that the current groundwater monitoring would be continued based on the current Detection Monitoring Program. However, for cost purposes it was assumed that six additional wells would be needed to provide further documentation on the extent of groundwater impacts and to document any the changes that could occur over time. The estimated capital costs for Alternative 2 is approximately $51,000, and includes installation of six additional groundwater monitoring wells at the northern toe of the landfill, evaluation of the extent of VOC impacts, assessment of the potential for VOCs to impact the unnamed seasonal creek, and assessment of the potential pathways to human and ecological receptors. SAC186.09 3 8 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $23,000 per year. These costs include monitoring the six additional wells and the unnamed seasonal creek for VOCs on a quarterly basis and reporting the results of the monitoring. 6.2.3 Alternative 3 -- Discrete Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge Alternative 3 consists of a six-well groundwater extraction system design based on the discrete extraction model, followed by direct discharge to a proposed on-site lift station with a connection to the existing sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. The location of the lift station and new pipeline would be essentially the same as shown on Figures 4-5 and 4-1, respectively. The conceptual design assumes that pneumatic well pumps installed in six wells would deliver extracted groundwater to the existing leachate collection pipe along the toe of the Landfill. The extracted groundwater would drain by gravity to the new lift station located in the vicinity of the existing leachate holding pond. The lift station would pump continuously into the sanitary sewer at a total discharge of 2 to 5 gpm. The air compressor that drives the extraction pumps and electrical control system is assumed to be at the lift station, with a main power supply originating in the vicinity of the Landfill scale house. Groundwater monitoring would continue based on the current Detection Monitoring Program. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 3 is $300,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, a prefabricated lift station, a new pipeline from the lift station to the sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road, and electrical and control systems. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $55,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of six extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, POTW fees, and additional sewer discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.4 Alternative 4 -- Discrete Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge Alternative 4 consists of a six-well groundwater extraction system identical to the one described for Alternative 3. Extracted groundwater would flow through a new pipeline along the toe of the Landfill to the leachate holding pond. The new pipeline is used to limit sediment that could be associated with the existing leachate collection pipe system. The groundwater would be sprayed into the pond via an irrigation nozzle or sprinkler to maximize volatilization of VOCs and water evaporation. Subsequent discharge to the leachate lift station and sanitary sewer connection would occur only when needed to maintain the minimum allowable freeboard in the leachate holding pond. As for Alternative 3, the pump air compressor and electrical control s^c~86.09 39 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill system is assumed to be at the lift station, with a main power supply originating in the vicinity of the Landfill scale house. Groundwater monitoring would continue based on the current Detection Monitoring Program. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 4 is $320,000 including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, pond sprinkler system, a prefabricated lift station, a new pipeline from the lift station to the sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road, and electrical and control systems. It was assumed that the leachate pond would be reconstructed as described in Section 4.0 using another source of funding. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $58,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of six extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, POTW fees, and additional sewer discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.5 Alternative 5 -- Discrete Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 5 consists of a six-well groundwater extraction system based on the discrete impacts model followed by on-site treatment using aqueous phase GAC, and discharge of treated groundwater to the nearby creek under an NDPES surface water discharge permit. The groundwater extraction system would be the same as that developed for Alternatives 3 and 4. Extracted groundwater would be pumped through a new pipeline along the toe of the Landfill to a treatment unit assumed to be located near the existing leachate holding pond. Treated groundwater would be discharged to the creek at 2 to 5 gpm via a gravity drain with appropriate outfall protection. Based on the estimated quality of extracted groundwater, and because vinyl chloride and chloroethane are not easily adsorbed to carbon, the GAC utilization rate is expected to be about 32,000 pounds per year at 5 gpm. Four 1,000-pound capacity GAC vessels were assumed, resulted in an estimated changeout frequency of 3 vessels (3,000 pounds) every 35 days. In addition to continued groundwater monitoring based on the current Detection Monitoring Program, discharges to the creek would also be periodically monitored to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the NPDES permit. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 5 is $230,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater transfer and compressed air pipelines, GAC treatment unit, creek outfall structure, and electrical and control systems. SAC186.09 40 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $133,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of six extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, fees for GAC changeout and off-site regeneration, and additional surface water discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.6 Alternative 6 -- Discrete Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 6 consists of a six-well groundwater extraction based on the discrete extraction model followed by on-site treatment using a shallow tray air stripper, and discharge of treated groundwater to the nearby creek under an NDPES surface water discharge permit. Pretreatment of groundwater would be required to limit scaling problems in the air stripper. The groundwater extraction system would be the same as that developed for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. As with Alternative 5, extracted groundwater would be pumped through a new pipeline along the toe of the Landfill to a treatment unit assumed to be located near the existing leachate holding pond. Treated groundwater would discharge to the unnamed seasonal creek at 2 to 5 gpm via a gravity drain. Based on the estimated quality of extracted groundwater, off-gas treatment will not be required (Mendocino County AQMD, 1995). In addition to continued groundwater monitoring based on the current Detection Monitoring Program, discharges to the creek would also be periodically monitored to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the NPDES permit. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 6 is $210,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, air stripper treatment unit, creek outfall structure with outfall protection, and electrical and control systems. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $33,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of six extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, and additional surface water discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.7 Alternative 7 -- Continuous Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge Alternative 7 involves groundwater extraction through a series of 20 wells installed along the toe of the Landfill. This conceptual design is based on the continuous extraction model with a treatment alternative similar to Alternative 4. Extracted groundwater would flow through a new pipeline along the toe of the Landfill and would discharge through a series of nozzles or sprinklers into the leachate holding pond. As with Alternative 4, the objective of this system is to passively volatilize VOCs and evaporate excess water as much as practical. Unevaporated water would be discharged from the pond to an on-site lift station with a connection to the existing sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. The location of the lift station and new pipeline s^c~86.o~ 41 Ciff of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill would be essentially the same as shown on Figures 4-5 and 4-1, respectively. Due to the relatively high extraction rate, it is likely that the lift station would pump continuously into the sanitary sewer. The total continuous discharge rate will depend in part on pond geometry, but would probably not exceed the total anticipated groundwater extraction rate of 10 to 20 gpm. The air compressor that drives the 20 pneumatic well pumps and electrical control system is assumed to be located at the lift station, with a main power supply originating in the vicinity of the Landfill scale house. Groundwater monitoring would continue based on the current Detection Monitoring Program. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 7 is $485,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, a prefabricated lift station, a new pipeline from the lift station to the sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road, and electrical and control systems. It was assumed that the leachate pond would be reconstructed as described in Section 4.0 using another source of funding. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $165,000 per year, including quarter monitoring of 20 extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, POTW fees, and additional sewer discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.8 Alternative 8 -- Continuous Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge The conceptual design for Alternative 8 is similar to that described for Alternative 5, except that more extraction wells (20 total) and larger GAC units will be needed. Treated groundwater would discharge to the creek at 10 to 20 gpm via a gravity drain with appropriate outfall protection. Based on the estimated quality of extracted groundwater, the GAC utilization rate is expected to be about 125,000 pounds per year at 20 gpm. Two 10,000-pound capacity GAC vessels were assumed, resulting in an estimated changeout frequency of one vessel every 28 days. In addition to continued groundwater monitoring based on the current Detection Monitoring Program, discharges to the creek would also be periodically monitored to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the NPDES permit. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 8 is $430,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, GAC treatment unit, creek outfall structure with appropriate outfall protection, and electrical and control systems. s^c~86.o~ 42 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $256,000 per year, including power, maintenance labor and expenses, fees for GAC changeout and off-site regeneration, and additional surface water discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.9 Alternative 9 -- Continuous Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 9 consists of groundwater extraction through a series of 20 wells installed along the toe of the Landfill, based on the continuous extraction model. As for Alternative 6, extracted groundwater would be treated on-site using a shallow tray air stripper. Pretreatment of groundwater would be required to limit scaling problems in the air stripper. Treated effluent would then be discharge to the nearby creek under an NDPES surface water discharge permit. Treated groundwater would discharge to the creek at 10 to 20 gpm via a gravity drain with appropriate outfall protection. Based on the estimated quality of extracted groundwater, off-gas treatment will not be required (Mendocino County AQMD, 1995). In addition to continued groundwater monitoring based on the current Detection Monitoring Program, discharges to the creek would also be periodically monitored to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the NPDES permit. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 9 is $370,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, air stripper treatment unit, creek outfall structure with outfall protection, and electrical and control systems. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $65,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of 20 extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, and additional surface water discharge monitoring costs. 6.2.10 Alternative 10 -- Continuous Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge Alternative 10 is the same as Alternative 3, except that the groundwater extraction system design would be based on the 20-well continuous extraction model. Extracted groundwater would flow through a new gravity drain pipeline along the toe of the Landfill to a new on-site lift station with a connection to the existing sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. The location of the lift station and new pipeline would be essentially the same as shown on Figures 4-5 and 4-1, respectively. The lift station would pump continuously into the sanitary sewer at a total discharge of 10 to 20 gpm. The pump air compressor and electrical control system is assumed to be at the lift station, with a main power supply originating in the vicinity of the Landfill scale s^c~86.o9 43 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill house. Groundwater monitoring would continue based on the current Detection Monitoring Program. The estimated capital cost for Alternative 10 is $484,000, including wells, pumps, groundwater and compressed air pipelines, a prefabricated lift station, a new pipeline from the lift station to the sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road, and electrical and control systems. O&M costs are estimated to be approximately $166,000 per year, including quarterly monitoring of 20 extraction wells, power, maintenance labor and expenses, POTW fees, and additional sewer discharge monitoring costs. 6.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES The ten corrective action alternatives are analyzed to select the most promising option . Evaluation criteria include life cycle cost, effectiveness, reliability, implementability, and community acceptance. Life cycle cost includes consideration of capital cost (money needed to fund design and construction of required facilities), operation and maintenance (O&M) of the system, and required monitoring. Groundwater, surface water, and air monitoring may be required, depending on the alternative. Effectiveness refers to the technical ability of the technologies involved to address the impacts. Effectiveness of monitoring, plume capture via extraction, and/or ability of treatment systems to remove or destroy chemicals to the necessary degree may be relevant. Reliability refers to the commercial status of the relevant technologies, i.e., experi m e n tal/i n n ovat ive. proven or Implementability includes two important criteria: technical feasibility and administrative feasibility. Technical feasibility refers to the relative degree of difficulty to design, construct, and operate the system, whereas administrative feasibility considers ability to acquire necessary permits from local, state, and federal agencies, as required. s^c~8~.o9 44 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Community acceptance includes consideration of non-cost criteria and impacts caused directly or indirectly as a result of implementing a given remedial alternative. Other potential impacts to be considered include air quality, traffic, surface water quality, infrastructure resources. The results of the alternative analysis are summarized in Table 6-3 and discussed below. The recommended alternative is further discussed in Section 7.0. 6.3.1 Alternative I -- No-Action If the No-Action alternative were selected, no additional expense would be required to construct and operate a groundwater monitoring system, because monitoring is currently underway and is required for a minimum of thirty years after landfill closure. Alternative 1, while not actively treating or removing impacted groundwater, would provide protection of human health and environmental quality through ongoing groundwater monitoring. This proven technology can reliably track dispersion and natural degradation of the impacts, and allows for early detection of new impacts, should they occur. Reliability is therefore good. Alternative 1 is poorly implementable, due to demonstrated vinyl chloride impacts. Community acceptance is also expected to be poor. 6.3.2 Alternative 2 -- Limited-Action Alternative 2 requires expansion of the current groundwater and surface water monitoring programs, resulting in fair effectiveness, good reliability, and fair to good implementability. Capital and O&M costs are greater than Alternative 1, but far lower than Alternatives 3 through 10. Community acceptance may be fair, depending in part on state support for the approach. 6.3.3 Alternative 3 -- Discrete Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge Alternative 3 (Discrete Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge) offers relatively Iow capital and annual O&M costs. This alternative might be particularly attractive if the City of Ukiah elects to construct the lift station and sewer connection to address leachate holding pond capacity problems because the capital expenditure for the discharge system could be allocated to two purposes. The effectiveness of treatment at the POTW is good, and overall effectiveness of this alternative is good. Although continuous discharge to the POTW is potentially unavailable, the relatively Iow flow rate should present relatively minor impacts to sewer and POTW hydraulic capacity. Chemical quality of the discharge is not expected to be an obstacle due to the relatively Iow VOC concentrations and dilution in the sanitary sewer system. s^c~86.o~ 45 CiO/of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill Implementability should therefore be good. Although this alternative impacts sewer capacity, community acceptance of this alternative should be good. 6.3.4 Alternative 4 -- Discrete Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge Alternative 4 (Discrete Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge) also offers relatively Iow capital and O&M costs. The sewer discharge rate should be similar to Alternative 3, and should not present a significant problem. As for Alternative 3, this alternative might be particularly attractive if the City of Ukiah elects to construct the lift station and sewer connection to address leachate holding pond capacity problems because the capital expenditure for the discharge system could be allocated to two purposes. Chemical quality of the mixed groundwater/leachate discharge is not expected to be an obstacle due to volatilization of groundwater VOCs and dilution of leachate BOD. Ratings for effectiveness, reliability, implementability, and community acceptance are the same as for Alternative 3. 6.3.5 Alternative 5 -- Discrete Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 5 (Discrete Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge) offers approximately the same degree of reliability and implementability as Alternatives 3 and 4. However, it is less effective and the annual O&M cost would be excessive due to high GAC use rates. Community acceptance for discharge of treated groundwater to the creek may be only fair due to perceived environmental impacts. Implementability should also be fair. 6.3.6 Alternative 6 ~ Discrete Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 6 (Discrete Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge) offers good treatment effectiveness, reliability, and implementability along with relatively Iow capital and O&M costs. As with Alternative 5, however, community acceptance of surface water discharge may be difficult to obtain. 6.3.7 Alternative 7 -- Continuous Extraction/Pond TreatmentJPOTW Discharge As for all the "conti n uous impacts model" alternatives, Alternative 7 (Continuous Extraction/Pond Treatment/POTW Discharge) has a high capital cost. Although the treatment technology should be effective and the reliability is good, relatively high-flow continuous discharge to the sanitary sewer is undesirable, resulting in a poor implementability rating. Community acceptance should be good. s^c~ 86.09 4 6 citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 6.3.8 Alternative 8 -- Continuous Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge As for Alternative .5, Alternative 8 (Continuous Extraction/GAC Treatment/Surface Water Discharge) would result in excessive O&M costs. The technologies generally offer fair to good treatment effectiveness and reliability. Also, as with Alternative 4, agency and community acceptance of surface water discharge may be difficult to obtain, resulting respective criterion ratings of good and fair. 6.3.9 Alternative 9 -- Continuous Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge Alternative 9 (Continuous Extraction/Air Stripper Treatment/Surface Water Discharge) offers Iow capital and O&M costs relative to the other "continuous impacts model" alternatives. If the continuous extraction model is selected, this alternative would be the least costly of all the continuous extraction alternatives. As discussed under Alternative 6, the air stripping technology has been proven to be effective, and reliability is also good. However, like Alternative 8, discharge to the creek may make it difficult to gain community approval and agency permits for the discharge, and community acceptance is expected to be fair. 6.3.10 Alternative 10 m Continuous Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge Although extraction and POTW treatment offer good effectiveness and reliability, Alternative 10 (Continuous Extraction/POTW Treatment and Discharge) would result in an undesirable relatively high-flow continuous discharge to the sanitary sewer, and therefore is poorly implementable. Community acceptance should otherwise be good. 6.3.11 Comparison and Ranking of Alternatives Alternative 1 (no-action), although the least costly of all ten alternatives, is expected to have poor state and community acceptance. Effectiveness of the current monitoring program to ensure detection and tracking of impacts is fair, and the reliability of the technologies employed is good. Alternative 2 (limited-action) also offers fair effectiveness and good reliability. Implementability and community acceptance should be better than for Alternative 1 due to the enhanced monitoring program. This Alternative is the least costly, except for Alternative 1. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 involve extraction of groundwater in accordance with the "discrete impacts model". Treatment effectiveness for Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 is good, whereas GAC (Alternative 5) offers fair effectiveness. The reliability of all these alternatives is good. Alternative 5 (GAC treatment) offers only fair implementability compared to a "good" rating for s^c~86.09 4 7 citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill the other three alternatives. Community acceptance for the "discrete impact" remedial approach should generally be good; however, public acceptance is expected to be better if the selected alternative does not involve discharge of treated groundwater to the unnamed seasonal creek. Alternative 5 is least desirable in terms of both capital and O&M cost; Alternatives 3 and 4 have roughly equivalent capital and O&M costs, whereas Alternative 6 is overall least costly. Alternatives 7, 8, 9, and 10 are based on the "continuous impacts model," which includes extraction of groundwater along the entire northern boundary of the Landfill. In general, the effectiveness and reliability of all "continuous impacts" alternatives is expected to be good, with the exception of GAC treatment (Alternative 8). Relatively high flow rates to the sanitary sewer resulted in poor implementability ratings for Alternatives 7 and 10, whereas Alternative 8 offers fair implementability and Alternative 9 offers good implementability. Community acceptance is expected to be fair to good, with better acceptance of POTW discharge than creek discharge. 6.4 RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVE Based on this assessment and the nature and extent of impacts detected to date, selection of Alternative 2 (Limited-Action) appears to be justified for the following reasons: Impacts are contained within the Landfill property boundary and the lateral extent of impacts is limited by the unnamed seasonal stream at the base of the canyon; Although the shallow aquifer appears to be hydraulically connected to the stream, there is no evidence of impacts to surface water quality; Detections are sporadic and no clear concentration trends have been identified to date; and The cost of active remediation is not justified by the limited impacts present at th is site. If the RWQCB determines that Limited-Action is not acceptable, Alternatives 3 and 6 are the preferred discrete extraction alternatives. Alternative 9 is the preferred continuous extraction alternative; however, there is no current evidence to suggest that the continuous impacts model is correct. s^c~ 86.o9 48 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 6.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION MONITORING PROGRAM Development of a Corrective Action Monitoring Program will be based on the final corrective action alternative. If Alternative 2 (Limited-Action) is selected, the City of Ukiah will work with the RWQCB to develop an appropriate monitoring program that satisfies all appropriate regulatory requirements. s^c~86.o~ 49 city of Uldah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents conclusions and recommendations for the three primary tasks conducted as part of this study. These include: an assessment of the feasibility to extract leachate; preliminary engineering for reconstruction of the leachate holding pond; and evaluation of corrective action measures to address existing VOC groundwater impacts of the northern toe of the Landfill. 7.1 FEASIBILITY OF LEACHATE EXTRACTION As part of this study, three wells (LW-1, LW-2, and LW-3) were installed within the Landfill to evaluate the presence of leachate. The wells were installed at locations deemed to be topographic lows where leachate would be expected to accumulate, if present. Additionally, these three areas were selected to evaluate if leachate or groundwater was present within the former creek channel underlying the Landfill. Well LW-1 was dry, well LW-2 contained 2.7 feet of leachate, and well LW-3 contained 0.7 feet of leachate in November 1995. These results indicate that at this time, there is a limited amount of leachate present within the Landfill. Leachate baildown and recovery tests conducted in wells LW-2 and LW-3 showed slow recovery rates, which also indicates that there is minimal leachate within the Landfill. This information suggests that extraction of leachate is not practical at the present time. Continued monitoring of leachate levels is recommended throughout the winter season to determine if leachate depth increases seasonally to levels where leachate extraction may be possible. Additionally, it is recommended that coordinated monitoring of leachate levels, with groundwater levels at the northern toe of the Landfill, and with water levels in the unnamed seasonal creek be conducted to provide information for evaluating interaction between leachate, groundwater, and surface water. Once this information has been gathered and analyzed, a reevaluation of the potential for seasonal leachate extraction should be conducted. 7.2 LEACHATE HOLDING POND RECONSTRUCTION Two options for reconstruction of the existing holding pond were considered. The first option provides for a lined, expanded leachate holding/evaporation pond with adequate capacity to contain and evaporate tipping area leachate and direct precipitation generated by the average annual rainfall. The pond conceptual design maximizes pond capacity, and would be able to contain tipping area leachate and direct precipitation for the maximum historical precipitation year. However, the pond design may not be capable of providing complete evaporation for SAC186.09 50 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill years when greater than average precipitation occurs, and therefore does not address the worst case scenario. Costs for off-site disposal of leachate during high rainfall years could be significant, as was experienced by the City of Ukiah during the 1994/95 rainy season. The second option involves constructing a smaller, lined pond on the existing leachate holding pond site. The design basis for this smaller pond assumes regular off-peak discharges to an existing 10-inch sanitary sewer in Vichy Springs Road. This alternative includes construction of a leachate lift station and 5,000-foot combination force main/gravity drain to connect the pond to the sewer. Costs to design, permit and construct the large leachate evaporation pond are estimated to be approximately $224,000. The estimated cost for the smaller pond with lift station and pipeline is approximately $329,000. Although the leachate evaporation pond system is more attractive based solely on pond construction costs, we recommend that the City of Ukiah also consider costs associated with off-site leachate disposal d u ring h igher-than-average precipitation years and the potentially negative traffic impact of additional tank trucks on Vichy Springs Road. 7.3 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION Groundwater monitoring conducted at the site has identified VOC impacts along the northern toe of the Landfill. The specific VOC detections include benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, chloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. With the exception ofvinyl chloride, the recent round of monitoring results conducted in July 1995, indicate that the VOC concentrations are below MCLs. Vinyl chloride was detected in one well during the last round of sampling at a concentration of 6.9/~g/L, which is above the 0.5-#g/L MCL. However, it should be noted that the mere presence of detectable concentrations of VOCs constitutes an exceedence of the Water Quality Protection Standards established by the RWQCB. Therefore, several corrective action alternatives were identified and evaluated in this document that could have application, should the City of Ukiah be directed to address existing groundwater impacts. Several corrective action alternatives were developed using selected groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge technologies. The groundwater containment technologies that were considered include construction of a cut-off wall, a system of vertical groundwater extraction wells, and a horizontal drain system. Limited groundwater testing performed at the site indicates that the vertical well option offers the most advantageous option for containing groundwater and limiting plume movement. This study considered several alternative in-situ and ex-situ SAC186.09 51 Citr of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill groundwater treatment options and determined that ex-situ treatment was preferred. Ex-situ treatment options include treatment of extracted groundwater using air stripping, carbon adsorption, and treatment at the municipal wastewater treatment plant. Discharge options considered include pumping and discharge to the sanitary sewer, discharge to the unnamed seasonal creek, and reinjection into the groundwater. Discharge to the sanitary sewer and discharge to the unnamed seasonal creek were preferred, while reinjection appears technically unfeasible. Further refinement of the options led to the development of ten corrective action alternatives. The ten corrective action alternatives can be roughly divided into three groups: (1) the no-action and limited-action scenarios; (2) an assumption of discrete groundwater impacts with a limited groundwater extraction scenario; and (3) an assumption of a continuous impacted zone along the entire northern toe of the Landfill. Each of three general groups of corrective action alternatives are discussed below: lo No-Action and Limited-Action Alternatives The no-action alternative (Alternative 1 ) includes no steps to control, remove, or treat the existing groundwater impacts. The no-action alternative does not include a more comprehensive monitoring program to confirm the extent of VOC impacts and natural degradation, and therefore, the no-action alternative was judged to be not feasible. The limited-action alternative (Alternative 2) includes upgrading the current groundwater monitoring program to better define the extent of impacts along the northern toe of the Landfill, and assess the potential for impacts to the surface water. This option also includes an assessment of potential risk exposure pathways. The limited-action alternative could be feasible under the evolving State Water Resources Control Board "containment zone" policy (SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49). Pursuing the new "containment zone" option with the RWQCB is worthwhile, given the monitoring information presented to date that suggests that VOC impacts may be limited and, in some cases, show a decreasing trend over time. Should the limited-action alternative be pursued, a program would be developed for monitoring and evaluating groundwater conditions, and could include a contingency plan that outlines the remedial action response to be pursued in the event that further VOC impacts are identified in future or existing wells, or the unnamed seasonal creek. SAC186.09 5 2 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill e Discrete Groundwater Extraction Alternatives Four corrective action alternatives were developed based on the assumption that discrete groundwater impacts exist along the northern toe of the Landfill, and that the RWQCB may direct the City of Ukiah to implement active groundwater corrective action. The assumption that discrete impacts exist appears reasonable based on the existing groundwater monitoring data (i.e., no information indicates that the groundwater impacts are continuous along the toe of the Landfill). This group of four corrective action alternatives assumes that groundwater extraction would be required at three impacted areas along the toe of the Landfill. The discrete extraction options include variations on treatment of the extracted groundwater and discharge. Should the RWQCB judge that groundwater treatment is necessary, we recommend implementing either Alternative 6, Alternative 3, or Alternative 4. Alternative 6 appears to be the Iow-cost treatment option and includes air stripping to remove VOCs and discharge to the unnamed seasonal creek. Alternative 3 includes discrete extraction and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except that pretreatment in the leachate containment pond is proposed prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. The economical attraction of Alternatives 3 and 4 will improve if the City of Ukiah elects to construct the small leachate pond and piping system to the sanitary sewer system. Alternative 5, which is identical to Alternative 6 except an activated-carbon unit replaces air stripping, is technically ineffective at removing VOCs. e Continuous Groundwater Extraction Alternatives This group of four corrective action alternatives is based on the assumption that impacts -- and thus groundwater extraction -- would be continuous along the entire northern toe of the Landfill. A total of four continuous extraction alternatives were developed. Of the various continuous extraction alternatives, Alternative 9, which consists of air stripping and discharge to the unnamed seasonal creek, appears to be the most appropriate alternative. As previously stated, the groundwater monitoring data obtained to date do not indicate that groundwater impacts are continuous. Therefore, continuous groundwater extraction is not recommended at this time. In conclusion, because VOC impacts appear to be limited and appear to be decreasing with time, Alternative 2, the Limited-Action alternative, appears feasible. This alternative should be pursued with the RWQCB. However, if the RWQCB judges this alternative not to be protective of human health and the environment, then either Alternative 6 or Alternative 3 should be SAC~ 86.09 5 3 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill pursued. Both Alternatives 6 and 3 include discrete groundwater extraction, with discharge of extracted groundwater to either the sanitary sewer or the unnamed seasonal creek.y s^c~86.09 54 City of Ukiah Engineering Feasibility Study of Corrective Action Measures Ukiah Landfill 8.0 REFERENCES EBA Wastechnologies, Inc., 1993. Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site Report of Waste Discharge, Santa Rosa, May. Goodman, R.E., D.G. Moye, A. van Schalkwyk, and I. Javandel, 1965. Ground water inflows during tunnel driving. Eng. Geol., 2, pp. 39-56. Javandel, I., and C. Tsang, 1985. Capture-Zone Type Curves: A Tool for Aquifer Cleanup. Preprint to the Journal of Groundwater, 12 pp. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 1994. Final Report on Evaluation of Landfill Leachate Treatability at the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant, November. McWorter, D.B., and D.K. Sunada, 1977. Groundwater Hydrology and Hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO. 290 pp. Mendocino County AQMD, 1995. Personal communication between Diane Gale of Dames & Moore and John Lawton of Mendocino County AQMD, December 7-8. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 1995. Proposed Amendment of Resolution No. 92-49, "Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup and Abatement Under Section 13304 of the Water Code," Notice of Second Public Hearing, September. Central Valley RWQCB (CVRWQCB), 1995. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals, Sacramento, CA. North Coast RWQCB, 1995. Personal communication between John Fawcett of Dames & Moore and Dave Evans, December 7-8. Ukiah, City of, 1995. Letter to John Fawcett of Dames & Moore, dated December 8. S^C186.09 5 5 City of Ukiah .~ CD [1. W 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 · I I I I 0 · i i i i o o · i i -- i i ii · u~ o .~ u% O~ o O~ -.~ o u~ o o o o i ~ i i o o o o z iii I=- I. IJ ~' 0 ~'~ ~ tLI 0 ~- ,--, Z 0 0 ~ 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 (- o I! ! o O~ ~ O~ ~ c3 C3 0 0 I,LI 0 0 ~ 0 CD CD o o o CD I~ CD CD co 0 '4> CD ,,0 CD IZ~ CD ~ CD ! ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ' ' ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 N 0 i I o o ~- o o o o o o o ! i i · o i i , . o , -- , i o o i -- i o o o o o o i i i i I i i ! i i i o o -~ 0 0 ~0~~~ ~xO0o ~J cD ~ cD o o cD o o o o ~ c> o o o o O, o · · o o o o o o 0 II o cD i i i · o o i I I . 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o tv, LLJh,, LLI 0 ..IIJJ ~ '~' kiJ -T- --~ ..~ '"""' ~ IA~ 0 z uJ z ~- tv. h,, -r- ~ LLI LL,I LLI ~C0 0 el3 0 ~ ,-.J--.I Z --,i --I ,--J .--J~-~-- LI.J --J -r= ~ --.I ~-~I-- IJ=l IJJ 0 0 z II E .g ,,tm' < ~ ~ · · · · ~ o o o m ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ · o o ~ ~ ~ '- ~ ._ ~ ~ _ I ,~Je~Jej. 8 8 8 § qlJoN puo~l eJEI eeJy tao,uo~ I ~-06 /.'"O6 ~lllllllllllllll o -o · O0 '~6 069 ..__~.~~ ;69 gOL 069 069 ~69 APPENDIX A VOC TIME-CONCENTRATION GRAPHS Page 4 I I I I I Page 5 I I I I ~1 I I I ~1 Page 6 Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I Page 8 I I I II I IIII IIII I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I ~1 I I I Page 9 I I IIII II I ! I t I I I I I I I I UlIIlil I t I I t ID, t I ! ! Page '10 III I IIII I I ' Page I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page I I I I I I I I Page ~3 I I I I II II I I I I II I I -~I~I I~ I~ '"" '=' '~ o ,,~ II I wi ,.,,I ol C) x Jill Illl I I I I I I I I ,=,1 Page ~4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I II III I I I I I I I I ~' , Page Page ~6 I I I III I II I I I I Ill I II -- ,.,I ,=,1 col I t I I Page ~7 ~L I APPENDIX B LEACHATE EXTRACTION WELL BORING LOGS SAMPLING C)_ ri,- Drill ppm, Drill ppm Drill ppm Drill l ppm ~ Drill 1 ppm ,- Drill I ppm · nrill ! r,~rn LEACHATE WELL LW-1 DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLING METHOD 2" CALIFORNIA SAMPLER DATE COMPLETED 11/7/95 ELEVATION (TOP OF CASING) SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION -~'" FILL FILL (inter'ira cover), gray, silty day, damp, stiff, <v< <v < f.~ I"" ,..,,.. GAR GARBAGE, with odor, containing: Parts of plastic bags, "*'~' wool mitten/socks, paper milk carton, pieces of ~..., ~ metal/wire, pieces of newspaper (only date found was ({.¥',,'~ Friday, May 30, '/-,'A ," %~SOIL Driller reported intermediate soil cover, dark gray to ~ ~ black, silty clay. ;..~ GAR GARBAGE ~'%,,,~ 23' Driller reported tire and metal. ~'~2/~ 27' Driller reported soil and wood. · ..,'.. GARBAGE, highly decomposed, some metal wire and ?("/ plastic. ,..'-., 2O -25 3O -35 / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / × / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Dames & Moore 02736-0030-038 LW-1 LEACHATE WELL LW-1 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILTY REPORT City of Ukiah Ukiah, California Page 1 of 2 SAMPLING m o -~ 4 DS 4 24/6 2 35 ppm for ,3" 5O DS ppm for 18/0 ,3" 26 DS I ppm 32 18/18 DS I ppm 32 18/3 5O for ,3" 167 DS I ppm for 18/3 3" 8 DS l ppm 38 18/9 5O for ,3" LEACHATE WELL LW-1 DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLING METHOD 2" CALIFORNIA SAMPLER DATE COMPLETED 11/7/95 ELEVATION (TOP OF CASINGI ! SYM~BOLS DESCRIPTION #%,,/ !%~ ~,~ GARBAGE, dry, some ardor, trace organic fibers, [race ~ orange stains, with pea gravel. ~ ~, ~ Obstruction in lead auger, no sample recovered. ~ ~ SM Obstruction in lead auger, sluff in sampler. Possibly the base of the landfill. Obstruction in lead auger, sluff in sampler. Greenish gray, SILTY SAND, well graded, sand is very  fine to coarse, predominately fine, dense, dry, moderately cemented. Total Depth = 59.5 feet bgs a~ 1700 hrs on 11/7/95. 35 4O 45 5O 55 -60 65 Dames & Moore 02736-0030-038 LW-1 LEACHATE WELL LW-1 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILTY REPORT City of Ukiah Ukiah, California Page 2 of 2 SAMPLING ~ 0 ,r-,, C, __ .,.-, Drill l ppm Drill l ppm Drill I ppm Drill l ppm 4 DS 4 18/18 4 DS 7 12/12 DS 14 18/18 7 I0 14 DS 34 18/15 _ 47 ~ Is! Wa~er During Dh·ling LEACHATE WELL LW-2 DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLING METHOD 2" CALIFORNIA SAMPLER DATE COMPLETED 11/8/95 ELEVATION (TOP OF CASING) .~YMBOLS DESCRIPTION C~" FILL FILL (interim cover}, gray, silty clay, damp, stiff. ¥ · 1,~, ,,. vV, '-*"~ GAR GARBAGE, with odor, dry, containing: Wood, plastic, ~%%.~ plastic from the inside of paper milk cartons, steel. A \# ¢%%- GARBAGE consists of: dark gray clay and wood, damp. .¢,¢~, ~-, ~-, GARBAGE consists of: dary gray clay and wood, trace ,~;~%, plastic bags and sock/glove pieces. Increase in ,,,,,., moisture content to moist. ~'-'%% GARBAGE is wet. >$?jO SC Greenish gray, CLAYEY SAND, well graded, sand is · ·;,,/ predominantly fine grained, wet. ~,, <,,' Grades to brownish yellow to yellowish red color. , <, ,-/ ,> ~,, · Increase in clay content. ,,· ~·. Grades to decrease in clay content, with silt. 2O .3O -35 Noore LEACHATE WELL LW-2 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILTY REPORT City of Ukiah Ukiah, California Page I of 2 SAMPLING o.~ ~ b! l,leter £urmg Dr#ling LEACHATE WELL DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD DATE COMPLETED ELEVATION (TOP OF CASING) LW-2 HOLLOW STEM AUGER 2" CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 11/8/95 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION Total Depth = 35.5 feet bgs at 1600 hrs on 11/8/95. 35 40 -45 5O -55 6O -65 7O Dames & Moore 02736-0030-038 LW-2 LEACHATE WELL LW-2 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION KEASIBILTY REPORT City of Ukiah Ukiah, California Page 2 of 2 SAMPLING o ~ Drill l ppm Drill t ppm 5 DS 6 18/18 DS l ppm ~ 18/18 8 9 DS l ppm i8/18 Water During Drilling LEACHATE WELL LW-3 DRILLING METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLING METHOD 2" CALIFORNIA SAMPLER DATE COMPLETED I1/9/95 ELEVATION (TOP OF CASING) SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION ~ ~' ~ ~' Fill FILL, (Toe berm), brownish yellow, silty clay, dry. <v< < "~<' Grades to dark brown, increase in moisture content to < v < damp. ~ ~ ~ ~ Grades ~o dark gray, increase in moisture content to ~ ~ % ~ moist. < < v < FILL becomes dark gray clay, moist.  CL ~edium brown CLAY, trace silt, moist, soft.  Greenish gray sandy clay, soft, sand is poorly graded, ~ predominantly very fine-grained, moist, with yellowish red laminations.  Grades to: Brownish yellow to yellowish red, mottled SC color with black stains. Brownish yellow to yellowish red, CLAYEY SAND, loose,  sand is poorly graded, sand is predominantly very fine grained, color is mottled, wet. Total Depth = 18.5 feet bgs 8t H00 hrs on 11/9/95. -25 3O -35 Dames & Moore LEACHATE WELL LW-3 GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION FEASIBILTY REPORT City of Ukiah Ukiah, California 02736-0030-038 LW-3 Page loll APPENDIX C AQUIFER PUMP TEST DATA ILl (/3 Z 0 III "' III :~ " II] ~,,~ Z ~ '-" ~ ~ III ~1 Ii Ill ~l ~ ~ II Il III ltl _ c:, d (:5 ',- (:3 (::3 ~'- (~,eaj) u~opateJO 0 (:3 (:3 0 (:3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uJ z 0 (:laa..[) u~op,~eJO cz) o o o o o o o o IA! (/3 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (lee.~) ut~op~eJO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w- 0 (5 o .. (,9 rr W F- O < [ E ,- W I-- <~ - ' D. W :,, Cl. >- :~ ~_ - ....... ~,, ,-~_,~ I,-- Z [-- _1 _1 W mm w ,~ rr 0 ~ uJ w I- ,~,'- ' ~ w ~- ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ < o~ 0 - c~ .. i - o , -- 0 -- 0 -- ~ - o - o ~ o orr' 0 0 7-::.-z::;::_--_~ ..... Lz._-.;z;_-:i:::m::-.':;-_":.cz.- .... :;;z:::z..-cz:zz%c:-_-7_-..-_:c.:::c::c~z° ................. 4 .................. i ............................ ~ ............................... i ...I- ~ ......................... u. ......... .,;. ................ ~ ............... ~ L I i i ........................ ~ ..............................~ ..................................... t. ........................................ i ............................ 0 ~ ................................... .~ ........................................ 4 ........................................ ?.' ................................................ .., ................................. ...................................... I-- .............................. ~ ............................................ ~ ............................................ 4 ................................ a--- ............ t .............................. ..-t ............................................... .i ....................................... i .................................. l ................ c;7'-' .......... t'- ............ j ........................... ~ ............................... ~ ........................... ! ..................... L_/_'_ .......... 1- i i i i J i/ / .... , ............................. : ............................. i ............................ ', ............................... ,",- ............... ,'- i i I J i I ~ .4' .ii ........ ! ................ i j I i i .'- I ~.----..I~ ........................ ~ ....................... 4 .................... '~ ~--r ............. z__-c__--z-_.-.."--:-'..z'-'~_-.z...T.'.,,z:zz:__-" ..-y:"-'..-___--z.z:Z * .... i ......................... ..t:i17_ !~ ~ m ~ 1 __/--. -.~ '7,._._::z.~ ...................... ~ _.., , _ ~~' ..'T' .............. , ....... i ...................... ~ ............. J -" . ./i ..................... -'t, ? - I ! i ........... _x__i ! i - (leel) NMOaM¥1:la ICl ~'~ Z 0 (::3 0 0 0 0 C~ o c~ o 0 0 0 (;aa:[) u~op~eJO 0 0 0 0 ~.==. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iii Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (,,i o~ ~ ~ o %,=-, (~,eej) u~op~ejO 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR LEACHATE POND RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND RECONSTRUCTION UKIAH LANDFILL UKIAH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 02736-003 - 038 B:\U KIAH\EVAP COST. WK 1 REV5 A. Olson 1/8/96 ESTIMATED UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY PRICE PRICE A MOBILIZATION LS I $15,000.00 $15,000 B EARTHWORK 1 Subgrade Infiltrometer Tests a Place and compact CY 15 $3.40 $51 b Infiltrometer Test EA 2 $1,200.00 $2,400 2 Surface Impoundment a Excavation at pond CY 4900 $2.70 $13,230 b Excavation at borrow pit CY 4300 $2.70 $11,610 c Haul from borrow to pond CY 4300 $3.10 $13,330 d Place and compact levee fill CY 9200 $3.40 $31,280 e Scarify and recompact subgrade CY 750 $3.40 $2,550 f Cushion geotextile SF 36000 $0.37 $13,320 g 60-mil HDPE geomembrane SF 36000 $0.86 $30,960 h OPTIONAL Soil cover (slopes) CY 400 $32.00 $12,800 i OPTIONAL Concrete lining protection (bottom) SF 11000 $3.00 $33,000 j Pipe Boots EA 3 $250.00 $750 3 Drainage Structures a Structure excavation CY ! 50 $15.00 $750 b Inlet Structure EA I $500.00 $500 c Manhole w/frame and cover EA I $2,500.00 $2,500 d Structure backfill CY 50I $7.00 $350 Pond outfall structure LS I $2,804.00 $2,804 C PAVING AND SURFACING I Class 2 AB roadway CY 300 $19.00 $5,700 D SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE 1 6-inch Sch. 80 PVC LF,i 60 $26.00 $1,560 2 Fittings LS [ 1 $250.00 $250 PROJECT SUBTOTAL (excluding optional systems) $149,000 ENGINEERING DESIGN $30,000 PERMITTING $8,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CQA $15,000 CONTINGENCY @ 15% $22,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL $224,000 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SMALL LEACHATE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT WITH LIFY STATION AND CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER UKIAH LANDFILL UKIAH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 B:\UKIAI-1LPR EC (2XS~.WK 1 REV6 A. Olson 1/9/96 ESTIMATED UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY PRICE PRICE A MOBILIZATION LS I $25,000.00 $25,000 B SITE PREPARATION 1 Clear and grub AC 2 $13,600.00 $27,200 C EARTHWORK 1 Subgrade Infiltrometer Tests a Place and compact CY 15 $3.40 $51 b Infiltrometer Test EA 2 $1,200.00 $2,400 2 Surface Impoundment a Excavation at pond CY 7400 $2.70 $19,980 c Haul excessfrom pond to borrow pit CY 4700 $3.10 $14,570 d Place and compact levee fill CY 2700 $3.40 $9,180 e Scarify and recompact subgrade CY 270 $3.40 $918 f Cushion geotextile SF 13000 $0.37 $4,810 g 60-mil HDPE geomembrane SF 13000 $0.86 $11,180 h OPTIOI~IAL Soil cover (slopes) CY 180 $32.00 $5,760 i OPTIONAL Concrete lining protection (bottom) SF 2700 $3.00 $8,100 j Pipe Boots EA 3 $250.00 $750 3 Pipeline a Trench excavation CY 930 $14.90 $13,857 b Pipe bedding, place and compact CY 60 $39.80 $2,388 c Backfill, place and compact CY 870 $14.30 $12,441 4 Lift Station & Drain Inlet Structure a Structure excavation CY 50 $15.00 $750 b Cast in place foundation CY 3 $210.00 $630 c Inlet Structure EA I $500.00 $500 d Backfill, place and compact CY 50 $4.10 $205 e Wet well w/pump mount & guide rail EA 1 $13,500.00 $13,500 D PAVING AND SURFACING I Class 2 AB roadway CY 280 $19.00 $5,320 E SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE 1 2-inch Sch. 40 PVC LF 5040 $5.40 $27,216 2 Fittings LS I $1,730.00 $1,730 3 Pond Outfall Structure LS 1 $2,500.00 $2,500 F MECHANICAL 1 Leachate Pump EA I $3,200.00 $3,200 G ELECTRICAL 1 ElectricalUtilityConnection LS I $10,000.00 $10,000 2 Electrical Wiring and Appurtenances LS I $8,000.00 $8,000 3 Control Panel w/Telemetry_ (Alarm) System LS 1 $7,000.00 $7,000 PROJECT SUBTOTAL (excluding optional systems) $225,000 ENGINEERING DESIGN $45,000 PERMITI'ING $10,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CQA $15,000 CONTINGENCY @ 15% $34,000 I ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL $329,000 APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES FOR GROUNDWATER CORRECTIVE ACTION ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 2 - LIMITED ACTION UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Expanded Groundwater Monitoring System Monitoring Wells Well head completion Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Report Administrative/Permitting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 6 each 6 each 1 Is 1 Is 1 Is 1 Is $3,500 $400 $15,ooo $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 $21,000 $2,400 $23.400 $15,000 $2,5O0 $5,0OO $5,0OO $27,500 $50,90O ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor Monitoring/Analytical Expenses Reporting Contingencies TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS 150 hours 1 Is 1 Is 1 Is 1 Is $60 $6,000 $1,000 $5,000 $2,000 $9,000 $6,000 $1,000 $5,OOO $2,OOO $23,000 (l) Based on St00 I~r vertlcal foot. (2) Based on analysis of 60t/602 ia all wells and the creek on a quarterly 09-Jan-96 ukiah2Ol.wkl PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 3 - DISCRETE EXTRACTION/POTW TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells 6 each Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic 6 each Well head box and completion 6 each 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 300 If 1/2" Air Supply pipeline 1900 If Bedding Sand 70 cy Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 9 scfm 1 each Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation 1 Is Lift Station and Connection to Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Pump Lift Station Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Total Direct Capital Costs $3,500 (t) $21,000 $2,600 (2) $15,600 $310 $1,900 $9 (3) $2,800 $7 (3) .(4) $13,300 $15 $1,100 $5,000 (2) $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 1 Is $85,000 $85,000 1 Is $3,200 $3,200 1 Is $16,000 $16,000 1 Is $18,000 $18,000 $197,9O0 INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design 1 Is $25,000 $25,000 Administrative/Per mitting 1 Is $15,000 $15,000 Construction Management 1 Is 10% of DCC $19,800 Contingencies 1 Is 20% of DCC $39,600 Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 $99,400 $~97,300 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 220 hours $50 $11,000 Power 1 Is $5,100 (6) $5,100 Monitoring/Analytical 1 Is $5,160 (7) $5,200 Expenses (includes equipment replacement) 1 Is $2,000 $2,000 POTW Fees 2,628,000 gal $0.01 $26,300 Contingencies 10% of Subtotal $5,000 TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $54,600 NoSe~ Al Told Ca~t~ ha~ kw ro~ided to tho ne0fe~t $100. (l) Ba~d on $100 per vertical fool (2) Cost from supplier + t0% for marktq~ and 20% for installation (3) Based on Means Mechanical Cost Data t99t. (Pipeline. ia~cludes trenchi0g and backfill.) (4) System design assnmcs grotmdwater drabts by gravity through the existing le.achate draist pipe. to pumping station. The 300' of pipe is for the two wester~t most e. xtractio, w~lls not se.rvcd by thr existing leachate drain pipe. (5) From Prelimina~ Cost Estimate for Small Leachate S~rface 1 mpoundme.nt w~th Lift St~tion a~d Connectimt to Sa.knry Sewe.r dated t2/t t/93. (6) Based on an electrical cost of $0. t2 per KWH. (7) Based on analysis of 60t/602 in all we. lis and discharge on a quarte.rly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 4 - DISCRETE EXTRACTION/POND TREATMENT/POTW DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003- 038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells 6 each $3,500 (~) Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic 6 each $2,600 (2) Well head box and completion 6 each $310 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 800 If $9 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1100 If $8 1/2" Air Supply pipeline 1900 If $7 Bedding Sand 70 cy $15 Pond dispersion aeration system 1 Is $500 Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 9 scfm 1 each $5,000 Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation 1 Is $15,000 Lift Station and Connection to Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Pump Lift Station Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Total Direct Capital Costs 1 Is $85,000 1 Is $3,200 1 Is $16,000 1 Is $18,000 INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design I Is $30,000 Administrative/Permitting 1 Is $15,000 Construction Management 1 Is 10% of DCC Contingencies 1 Is 20% of Dec Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 $21,000 $15,600 $1,900 $7,400 $9,000 $13,300 $1,100 $500 $5,000 $15,000 $85,000 $3,200 $16,000 $18,000 $211,900 $30,000 $15,000 $21,200 $42,400 $;108,600 $;320,500 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 260 hours $50 Power 1 Is $5,100 Monitoring/Analytical 1 Is $5,160 Expenses (including equipment replacement) 1 Is $3,000 POTW Fees 2,628,000 gal $0.01 Contingencies 10% of Subtotal TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $13,0OO $5,100 $5,200 $3,000 $26,3OO $5,3OO $57,9OO Nole: AB To~d Ce~l~ Jim b#a ro~Mled M &e mre~( $ IOO. (t) h~d on S1~ ~r verdcal fool (2) Cost from supplier + 10~ for markup and 20~ ior ins~llafion (3) ~d on Mel~ ~cchani~l Cost Da~ ~99[. (Pipeline include~ gcnchin~ and backfill.) (4) Prom Prellmlna~ C~t ~[ima~e for Small ~acha~ Suriace ]mpoundment wi~ ~ S~fion and Connection ro Sani~ry Sewer dated 1~11~5. (5) ~d on an elec~i~l cost of S0. t2 per KWH. (6) ~d on anti.is ot ~1/~2 in all wells and discharse on a quar~rly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201.wkl PRELIM INARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 5 - DISCRETE EXTRACTION/GAC TREATMENT/SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic Well head box and completion 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1/2" Air Supply pipeline Bedding Sand Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 9 scfm Treatment System Concrete Pad (10'x 10'x 8'~ Surge Tank (325 gallon poly tank) Pump (15gpm @ 60 psig) Bag Filter (100gpm capacity) GAC units (1000 lb. units) Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Outlet Structure Outlet Structure Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design Administrative/Permitting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 5 6 each $3,500 ([) 6 each $2,600 (2) 6 each $310 800 If $9 (3) 1100 If $8 (3) 1900 If $7 (3) 70 cy $15 1 each $4,973 2.5 cy 150 1 each $800 1 each $400 1 each $2,100 4 each $6,300 1 Is $25,000 1 Is $1,000 1 Is $35,000 1 Is $25,000 1 Is 10% of DCC 1 Is 20% of DCC $21,000 $15,600 $1,900 $7,400 $9,000 $13,300 $1,100 $5,000 $400 $800 $400 $2,1oo $25,20o $25,o0o $1,000 $129,200 $35,000 $25,0OO $12,900 $25,800 $98,700 $2 27,900 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor Power Monitoring/Analytical Expenses (includes equipment replacement) GAC Change Out Contingencies TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS 26O 1 1 1 12 hours $50 Is $5,100 Is $6,020 Is $3,500 each $7,800 10% of Subtotal (9) ([o) $13,000 $5,100 $6,000 $3,500 $93,600 $12,100 $133,300 No~ JsdJ Tota/Costs Lm bm troumded to &e m~efes! $100. (t) Base. d on S100 per vertical loot. (2) Cost f'rom snpplier + 10% for mart'up al~d 20% l'or installation (3) i~ased on Means Mechanical (~osr [3ara ~,99t. (Pipeline inci~des trenchht~ attd backfill,) (4) Based on Ryufl Herco Catalo& + [0% mark,p and 20% For installation. (5) Based on Orain~er Catalo~ + t0% maricup and 20% for instsllat~on (6) lhsed off Rosedal¢ ClttOte + t0~'e markup and 20% f*or installation (7) Based on cost estJruate front Catboat Air + t0% marlrup and 20% for installation. (8) Inclndes NPDE$ Permit. (9) Based on an electrical cost of* $0. t2 per KWH. (t0) Based on analysis of' 601/602 in all ~vells and creek dischar&e on a qnarterly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201.wkl PRE LIM I NARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 6 - DISCRETE EXTRACTION/AIR STRIPPER TREATMENT/SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736- 003- 038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic Well head box and completion 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1/2" Air Supply pipeline Bedding Sand Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 9 scfm Treatment System Concrete Pad (10'x 10'x 8'~ Surge Tank (325 gallon poly tank) Pump (15gpm @ 60 psig) Bag Filter (100gpm capacity) Air Stripper and Appertenances Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Outlet Structure Outlet Structure Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design Administrative/Permitting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 6 6 each $3,500 (l) $21,000 6 each $2,600 (2) $15,600 6 each $310 $1,900 800 If $9 (~) $7,400 1100 If $8 (3) $9,000 1900 If $7 (3) $13,300 70 cy $15 $1,100 1 each $4,973 (2) $5,000 2.5 cy 150 $400 1 each $800 (4) $800 1 each $400 (~) $400 1 each $2,100 (6) $2,100 1 each $11,174 (7) $11,200 1 Is $25,000 $25,000 1 Is $1,000 $1,000 $115,200 1 Is $35,000 $35,000 1 Is $25,000 (g) $25,000 1 Is 10% of DCC $11,500 1 Is 20% of DCC $23,000 $94,500 $209,700 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 260 hours Power 1 Is Monitoring/Analytical I Is Chemical Pre-Treatment I Is Expenses (includes equipment replacement) I Is Contingencies TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $50 $13,000 $5,100 (9) $5,100 $6,880 (t0) $6,900 $2,500 (it) $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 10% of Subtotal $3,000 $33,000 (t) Based on $t~ ~r vertical ;~ (2) Cost from supplier + t0% for mark.p and 20% for ins~llafion (3) Ba~d on Mea~ Mechanical Cost [)a~ l~t. (Pipeline incb~des trenchlns and back,IL) (4) Based on R~n Herco Cl~log + i0~ mark.p and 20~o for iosmllaliofl. (5) ~d on O~inger Catalog + ~0% markt~p and 20% rot ins~llatlon (6) ~sed on R~dale q.ott + t0% markup and 20% for installation (7) ~d on cost ~ma~. kom Caren Air + t0% markt~p and 20~e for installation. (8) lnclud~ NPDES PermiL (9) Ba~d ~ an electri~l cost of $0. t2 ~r KWH. (t0) ~d on ana~is of ~t/~2 in all wells, creek dischsrge, a nd air s~ipper discharse on a qna rterly basis. (! I) Hardne~ rem~UconUol cost ba~d on chemical [~e rate of 37 gallons per million ~allons of wa~r (~) St,000 per ~ gallons. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 7 - CONTINUOUS EXTRACTION/POND TREATMENTIPOTW DISCHARGE UKI^H LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cos1 ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells 20 each Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic 20 each Well head box and completion 20 each I 1/2" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1700 If 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1600 If 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 600 If 1" Air Supply pipeline 1200 If 3/4" Air Supply pipeline 2200 If 1/2" Air Supply pipeline 500 If Bedding Sand 144 cy Pond dispersion aeration system 1 Is Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 30 scfm 1 each Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation 1 Is Lift Station and Connection to Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Pump Lift Station Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Total Direct Capital Costs $2,625 $2,600 (2) $310 $13 (3) $9 (3) $8 (3) $9 (3) $8 (~) $7 (~) $15 $500 $11,700 (2) $15,000 1 Is $85,000 1 Is $3,200 1 Is $16,000 1 Is $18,000 INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design 1 Is $35,000 Administrative/Permitting 1 Is $15,000 Construction Management 1 Is 10% of Dec Contingencies 1 Is 20% of Dec Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 7 $52,500 $52 000 $6 200 $21 700 $14 800 $4 900 $10 500 $16 800 $3 500 $2 200 ;500 $1 ,700 $15,000 $3,200 $16,000 $18,000 $334,500 $35,000 $15,000 $33,500 $66,900 $150,400 $484,900 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 300 hours $50 Power 1 Is $9,100 Monitoring/Analytical 1 Is $17,200 Expenses (includes equipment replacement) 1 Is $3,500 POTW Fees 10,512,000 gal $0.01 Contingencies 10% of Subtotal TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $15,000 $9,100 $17,200 $3,500 $105,100 $15,000 $;164,900 (2) Cost from stlppller + t0~ for marktlp and 20~o for ins~lla~ofl (3) ~d on Mea~ Mechanical Cost Da~ 1991. (Pipeline includes ~enching and backfilL) (4) From Preiimina~ Cost Es~mate for Small ~achate Sttrface Impo, ndment with ~ft Statio, a.d Coflncction to Sani~ry Sewer dated t2/lt~5. (~ ~d on an electrical c~t of $0. t2 per KWH. (6) ~d on anal~is of ~1/602 in all wells and discharge on a qnartcrly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 8 - CONTINUOUS EXTRACTION/GAC TREATMENT/SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic Well head box and completion 1 1/2" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Air Supply pipeline 3/4" Air Supply pipeline 1/2" Air Supply pipeline Bedding Sand Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 30 scfm Treatment System Concrete Pad (15'x 15'x 4'~ Surge Tank (1025 gallon poly tank) Pump (30gpm @ 60 psig) Bag Filter (100gpm capacity) GAC units (10000 lb. units) Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Outlet Structure Outlet Structure Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design Administrative/Per matting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 8 20 each $2,625 20 each $2,600 20 each $310 1700 If $13 1600 If $9 600 If $8 1200 If $9 2200 If $8 500 If $7 144 cy $15 1 each $11,700 5.6 cy 150 1 each $2,1 O0 1 each $460 1 each $2,100 2 each $29,1 20 1 is $20,000 1 Is $1,000 1 Is $40,000 I Is $25,000 1 Is 10% of DCC 1 Is 20% of DCC (4) (5) (6) (?) $52,500 $52,0OO $6,200 $21,700 $14,800 $4,9OO $10,500 $16,800 $3,500 $2,200 $11,700 $8OO $2,100 $500 $2,1oo $58,200 $20,000 $1,000 $281,5OO $40,000 $25,00O $28,200 $56,300 $149,500 $431 000 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor Power Monitoring/Analytical Expenses (includes equipment replacement) GAC Change Out Contingencies TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS 4OO 1 1 1 12 hours $50 Is $9,100 Is $18,060 Is $4,500 each $15,000 10% of Subtotal (9) (LO) $20,O00 $9,100 $18,1 O0 $4,500 $180,000 $23,200 $254 900 No~: Ail To~d c~ ]sm boe~ zouoded to &e u~rmt $100. (t) ~sed on $75 per verdcal (2) C~t from supplier + t0% markup and 20% for ins~lJation (3) ~ on M~ns Mechanical Cost Da~ t~t. (Pipelh~e includes trenching aud backfill.) (4) ~sed on g~n Herco Ca~lo~ + 10~ markup and 20¢e for ~ns~lladon. (5) ~d on Orainger Ca~lo~ + 10% markup and 20% for installation (6) ~sed on Ro~dale quote + 10% markup and 20% for ins~llation (7) ~d on c~t estimate from Caren Air + ~0% markup and 20% for insallation. (8) Includ~ NPDES PermiL (9) ~scd on an elec~ical cost of $0.12 per KWH. (10) Based on anal~is of ~t/602 in all wells and creek discharge on a quarterly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl PRE LIM I NARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 9 - CONTINUOUS EXTRACTION/AIR STRIPPER TREATMENT/SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic Well head box and completion 1 1/2" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Air Supply pipeline 3/4" Air Supply pipeline 1/2" Air Supply pipeline Bedding Sand Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 30 scfm Treatment System Concrete Pad (15'x 15'x 8") Surge Tank (1025 gallon poly tank) Pump (30gpm @ 60 psig) Bag Filter (100gpm capacity) Air Stripper and Appertenances Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Outlet Structure Outlet Structure Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design Administrative/Permitting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 9 20 each $2,625 (~) $52,500 20 each $2,600 (2) $52,000 20 each $310 $6,200 1700 If $13 (3) $21,700 1600 If $9 (3) $14,800 600 If $8 (3) $4,900 1200 If $9 (.~) $10,500 2200 If $8 (3) $16,800 500 If $7 (3) $3,500 144 cy $15 $2,200 1 each $11,700 (2) $11,700 5.6 cy 150 $800 1 each $2,100 (4) $2,100 1 each $460 (.~) $500 1 each $2,100 (6) $2,100 1 each $11,1 74 (?) $11,200 1 Is $20,000 $20,000 1 Is $1,000 $1,000 $234,500 1 Is $40,000 $40,000 1 Is $25,000 (8) $25,000 1 Is 10% of DCC $23,400 I Is 20% of DCC $46,900 $135,300 $369,800 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 400 hours Power 1 Is Monitoring/Analytical 1 Is Chemical Pre-Treatment 1 Is Expenses (includes equipment replacement) 1 Is Contingencies TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $50 $20,000 $9,100 (9) $9,100 $18,920 (~0) $18,900 $7,779 (.) $7,800 $3,500 $3,500 10% of Subtotal $5,900 $65,200 (t) Based on $95 per vertical tool (2) Cost from supplier + tO% marknp a nd 20% tor inslalla tion (3) Based on Means Mechanical Cost [)ara t99t. (Pipeline inclndes trenching and backfill.) (4) Based on Ryan Herco Catalog + 10% mark.p and 20% for installation. (5) Based on Orainger Catalog + t0% markup and 20% for installation (6) Based on Rosedale quote + t0% mark.p and 20e/e for installation (?) Based on cost estimate from Catboat Air + 10% markup and 20% for ittstallatlon. (8) Includes NPDES Permit. (9) Based on an electrical cost of $0. t2 per KWH. (t0) Based on analysis of 60tl602 in all wells, creek discharge, and air stripper discharge on a qna rterly basis. (ti) Hardness removal/control cost based o~ che~nlcal ~se rate of 3? gallons per million gallons of water (~ $I.000 per 50 gallons. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATIVE 10 - CONTINUOUS EXTRACTION/POTW TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE UKIAH LANDFILL PROJECT NO. 02736-003-038 Item/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Notes Total Cost ($) DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS (DCC) Extraction System Extraction Wells Extraction Pumps - Pnuematic Well head box and completion I 1/2" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Water Conveyance Pipeline 3/4" Water Conveyance Pipeline 1" Air Supply pipeline 3/4" Air Supply pipeline 1/2" Air Supply pipeline Bedding Sand Air Supply Compressor 80 psig, 30 scfm Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Lift Station and Connection to Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Pump Uff Station Electrical Equipment, Control System and Installation Total Direct Capital Costs INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS Engineering/Design Administrative/Permitting Construction Management Contingencies Total Indirect Capital Costs TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE 10 20 each $2,625 20 each $2,600 20 each $310 1700 If $13 1600 If $9 600 If $8 1200 If $9 2200 If $8 500 If $7 144 cy $15 1 each $11,700 1 Is $15,000 1 Is $85,000 1 Is $3,200 1 Is $16,000 1 Is $18,000 1 Is $35,000 1 Is $15,000 1 Is 10% of DCC 1 Is 20% of DCC $52,500 $52,000 $6,2OO $21,700 $14,800 $4,900 $10,500 $16,800 $3,500 $2,200 $11,700 $15,000 (4) $85,000 $3,200 $16,000 $18,000 $334,000 $35,000 $15,OO0 $33,4OO $66,80O $150,200 $484,200 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Labor 300 hours $50 Power 1 Is $9,100 Monitoring/Analytical 1 Is $18,000 Expenses (includes equipment replacement) 1 Is $4,000 POTW Fees 10,51 2,000 gal $0.01 Contingencies 10% of Subtotal TOTAL ANNUAL O & M COSTS $15,000 $9,100 $18,OOO $4,000 $105,100 $15,1 O0 $166,300 (1) ~ar. ed on $75 per vertical foot. (2) Cost from supplier + 10fro markup and 20% for installation (3) Based on Means Mechanical Cost Data t99t. (Pipeline. includes trenchln~; and backfill.) (4) From Pre. Jlmi,ary Cost Estimate for Small Leachate S,rface hllpoundment with Lift Station and Connection to Sanitary Sewer dated t2/l 1/95. (5) Based on an electrical cost of $0.12 Per KWH. ('/) Based on analysis of 601/602 in all wells and discharge on a q,art~rly basis. 09-Jan-96 ukiah201 .wkl · , ' ' ITEM NO. gb DATE' January 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF POLICY RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY The City Treasurer is required to annually submit a Statement of Investment Policy. This draft Policy (attached as Exhibit A to the Policy Resolution) was reviewed and discussed by the City Treasurer, Finance Director, and City Manager, and is now being submitted to the City Council for discussion and adoption. City Treasurer, Pat Coyne, has worked in concert with other City Treasurers throughout the state and has had the Policy reviewed by experts in the field. He will be presenting and discussing the Policy with the Council. Mr. Coyne will also be going through his monthly report on the City's current investments recently submitted to the Council. This will provide the Council an opportunity to ask questions and advise the City Treasurer if they would like changes to the report for purposes of interpretation and understanding. If the Council approves the draft Investment Policy and adopts the attached Policy Resolution, Mr. Coyne will return to Council with changes to the Policy from time to time, as required by law. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council adopt Policy Resolution Revising Investment Policy. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Determine revisions are not required at this time. 2. Before adoption, make further revisions to Investment Policy. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City Treasurer Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Coordinated with: Pat Coyne, City Treasurer and Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Attachments: 1. Policy Resolution with Investment Policy as Exhibit A APPROVED: C~~~~~.~ andace Horsley, City ~anager R:4/Can:ASRInves 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22_ 23 24 25 26 27 28 POLICY RESOLUTION NO.~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING REVISED CITY INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City desires that the guidelines for investment of its cash assets to maximize the efficiency of the City's Investment Program remain prudent and legal; and WHEREAS, the objective of the City's cash management program should insure the investment of funds to the fullest and safest extent possible; and WHEREAS, the City attempts to obtain the highest yield consistent with meeting the criteria established for safety and liquidity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Investment Policy of the City of Ukiah, prescribed in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved. vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 1996, by the following roll call Al-rEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk 4/Re~:lnvest Investment Policy Statement Exhibit "A" Office of Treasurer CITY OF UKIAH INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT December 1995 I. PURPOSE The City Treasurer renders annually to the Ukiah City Council a statement of investment policy. This investment policy provides for necessary objectives to assure the City Council that the investment authority is judiciously exercised. II. OBJECTIVE The City of Ukiah's cash management system is designed to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, enabling the City to invest and manage funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield possible after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. The primary objective of the investment policy of the City of Ukiah is SAFETY. Investments shall be placed only in securities authorized by law and described in this policy and are managed in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of principal. Maximizing interest earned is a secondary objective once safety and liquidity have been assured. An adequate percentage of the portfolio shall be maintained in liquid, short-term securities which can be converted to cash if necessary to meet forecasted disbursement requirements. The portfolio shall also be appropriately diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions. The City adheres to the "prudent investor" role, which states, "Investments shall be made with judgment and care under circumstances then prevailing which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." III. POLICIES rev. 1-5-96 Page 1 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer Public Funds: It is the policy of the City of Ukiah to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the maximum safety and liquidity with the highest investment return while meeting it cash flow demands. . Prudent Investor Rule: Ukiah operates its investments program under the Prudent Investor Rule. This affords a broad spectrum of investment oppommities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and any other imposed legal restrictions, such as applicable under current bond issues. . Legal Compliance: The City's investments are authorized under and intended to comply with State of California statutes governing the investment of public funds, specifically with regards to Sections 53601 and 53601.1 of the Government Code. The investment policy applies to all financial assets directly controlled by the City of , Internal Controls: A system of internal controls shall be established and documented in writing by the City Treasurer and Finance Director. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation of third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets, or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City of Ukiah. Controls deemed most important include: minimization of opportunities for collusion, separation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, avoidance of bearer-form securities, specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial actions, written confirmation of all transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies, and proper review and approval of brokerage accounts and investment transactions. Reporting: The City Treasurer shall generate and present to the Finance Director, City Manager and City Council monthly reports for accounting and management purposes. Required elements of the report will include type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, rating, cost of the security, current market value and yield. These reports shall provide an appendix that discloses all transactions during the past month. By the third week of each month, the Uki~ Oversight Committee will receive a monthly report for the preceding month which will provide data on investment instruments being held, including maturities and market value, as well as any narrative necessary for clarification. Deviations from expectations shall be reported in a timely manner and shall include recommendations for appropriate action to control adverse developments. As detailed in the internal control procedure document, the Oversight Committee will meet at least every six months in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the investment activities of the Treasurer and Finance Director so as to insure that regulations are being adhered to and that strategies are being followed. rev. 1-5-96 Page 2 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer Management Responsibility: Management responsibility for the investment program resides directly with the City Treasurer and the Director of Finance. The City Manager will be kept fully apprised of all investment activities and will have, through his or her direct authority over the Finance Director, the opportunity to effect investment decisions and strategy development. . Conflict Of Interest: In accordance with California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. and 87100 et seq., officers and employees of the City will refrain from any activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. All investment personnel shall comply with the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act, to include the annual filing of Statements of Economic Interest. . Return On Investment: The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return through economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is defined as the average return on three-month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations, as defined herein, and prudent investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment returns above the market average rate of return. IV. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Generally, investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent investor" rule. The City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are authorized, and further limited herein: A. United States Treasuries: United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, and Notes, or those for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There is no limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio which can be invested in this category, although maturity limitations are restricted to a dollar weighted average portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. B. US Agency Obligations: Obligations issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) "Ginnie Mae", the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB), the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLB), the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)"Fannie Mae", the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (FHLMAC)"Freddie Mac" and the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA). Although there is no percentage linfitation on the dollar amount that can be invested in rev. 1-5-96 Page 3 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer these issues, the "prudent investor" rule shall apply for a single agency name. Maturity limitations are restricted to an dollar average weighted portfolio of 3 years or less with no single investment exceeding a 5 year maturity. Investments detailed in C through L below are additionally restricted as to percentage of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name up to a maximum of 5%. The total cost value invested in any one issuer name will not exceed 5% of an issuer's net worth. An additional 5%, or a total of 10%, of the cost value of the portfolio in any one issuer name can be authorized upon written approval of the Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager. C. Banker Acceptances: Bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by a commercial bank, otherwise known as banker's acceptances. Banker's acceptances purchased may not exceed 270 days to maturity or 40% of the cost value of the portfolio and the City may only purchase Bills of Exchange accepted by banks which meet the requirements for investment in short term certificates of deposit (less than 24 months) in Section V. D. Commercial Paper: Commercial paper ranked "P 1" by Moody's Investor Services or "Al+" by Standard and Poor's, and issued by domestic corporations having assets in excess of $500,000,000 and having an "A" or better rating on its long term debentures as provided by Moody's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 180 days to maturity or represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the cost value of the portfolio. An additional 15% or a total of 30% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in commercial paper if the dollar weighted average maturity of the dollars in commercial paper invested does not exceed 31 days. Eo Negotiable Certificates: Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank or a state or federal savings institution, or a State-licensed branch of a foreign bank ("Yankee"). Purchases of negotiable certificates of deposit may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the portfolio. To be eligible for purchase by the City the NCD must meet the credit and maturity criteria as stated in Section V. F, Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in repurchase agreements with banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase agreement. The maturity of repurchase agreements shall not exceed 365 days. The market value of securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be initially priced with margin ratios of 110%. Collateral pricing will be monitored daily by the investment staff and not be allowed to fall below 100% of the value of the repurchase agreement. In order to conform with provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provide for the liquidation of securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements, the only rev. 1-5-96 Page 4 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit, commercial paper, eligible bankers' acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of the United States or any agency of the United States. G. Reverse Repurchase Agreements: The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements only with those banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase contract. The City may invest in reverse repurchase agreements with the following conditions: When the earnings from the matching investment(s) are greater than or equal to the cost of the reverse(s) and the terms and conditions are otherwise favorable to the City. Reverse repurchase agreements entered into in accordance with this paragraph may not exceed 95 days to maturity without written approval of the City Treasurer, Finance Director and City Manager, and must be matched as to maturity with all proceeds of the reverse repurchase reinvested in the matched security. Floating rate notes may be utilized for the reinvestment of reverse repurchase proceeds where the coupon reset date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Fixed rate securities with maturities greater than 95 days with 'puts' may also be utilized for reinvestment of reverse proceeds where the put on the security is exercisable within 95 days and the put date is matched to the maturity of the reverse. Both floating rate and putable securities should only be used for reinvestment purposes when there is an appropriate yield advantage to other short dated securities. . Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 95 days are authorized if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse and will mature within six months from the date of settlement. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. . Term reverse repurchase transactions in excess of 6 months are authorized if the securities underlying the reverse are matched with the maturity of the reverse, mature more than 6 months but within one year from date of settlement and have written approval of the Treasure, Finance Director and City Manager for each transaction. The proceeds of the reverse transaction must be reinvested in securities that match the maturity of the term reverse repurchase agreement. H. Local Agency Investment Fund: The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies up to the maximum permitted under Section 16429.1 of the Government Code. rev. 1-5-96 Page 5 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer J. Time Deposits: The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, in those banks and savings and loan associations which meet the requirements for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. Since time deposits are not liquid, no more than 25% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in this category. Financial Futures: The City may sell financial futures contracts with respect to securities owned by it, including securities which are subject to reverse repurchase agreements. The City may buy financial futures contracts in order to offset already existing futures positions. K. European or American Call Options: The City may use European or American Call or Put Options with respect to U.S. Treasury or U.S. Agency obligations. The maximum outstanding exposure allowed is $5 million face value for Calls bought or sold by the City and $2.5 million face value for Puts bought or sold by the City. The expiration date on any contract will not exceed 90 days. L. Medium-Term Notes: The City may invest in medium-term notes issued by corporations operating within the United States. Securities eligible for investment shall be rated in accordance with the maturity and rating criteria described in Section V. In addition, the issuing corporation itself must have a minimum rating of"A" by both Standard and Poor's and Moody's and have in excess of $500,000,000 in Shareholders Equity. Purchase of medium-term notes may not exceed 15 % of the cost value of the portfolio. No more than 5% of the cost value of the portfolio may be invested in notes issued by any one corporation. Commercial paper holdings should be considered when calculating the maximum percentage in any issuer name. M. Mutual Funds & Beneficial Interest Shares: Share of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies or mutual funds shall be rated in the highest rating category ora least two of the three nationally recognized rating services (e.g. Moody's P-1 or S&P AAAm) and must have in excess of $500,000,000 in assets under management. The purchase price shall not include commissions and shall not exceed 5% of the cost value of the portfolio. N. Notes, Bonds or Other Obligations: Notes, bonds, or other obligations which are at all times secured by a valid first priority security interest in securities of the types listed by Section 53651 as eligible securities for the purpose of securing local agency deposits having a market value at least equal to that required by Section 53652 for the purpose of securing local agency deposits. The securities serving as collateral shall be placed by delivery or book entry into the custody of a trust company or the trust department of a bank which is not affiliated with the issuer of the secured obligation, and the security interest shall be perfected in accordance with the requirements of the rev. 1-5-96 Page 6 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP Investment Policy Statement Office of Treasurer Uniform Commercial Code or federal regulations applicable to the types of securities which the security interest is granted. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of"AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. Oo Pass Through and/or Certificate Investments: Any mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond of a maximum of five years maturity. Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be issued by an issuer rated in a rating category of "AA" or its equivalent or better by a nationally recognized rating service and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's unsecured debt, as provided by a nationally recognized rating service. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20 percent of the agency's surplus money that may be invested pursuant to this section. P. Ineligible Investments: Investments not described herein, including, but not limited to, common stocks and long-term corporate notes/bonds are prohibited from use in the City of Ukiah's portfolio. Qo Maximum Investment Maturity: Investment which exceed 5 years in maturity require authority granted by City Council before purchase. Written authority of the City Council must be granted specifically or as part of an investment program no less than three months prior to the date of purchase. rev. 1-5-96 Page 7 of 8 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A. CFP 'i 2 2 2 C Internal Control COYNE ASSOCIATES Money Management Strategies and Investment Selection Procedures . . . The Treasurer and Finance Director, with the assistance of an outside professional fee only investment advisor, will formulate an investment strategy that is in compliance with the Investment Policy Statement adopted by City Council and meets the City's needs for safety and liquidity. With the assistance of the outside fee only investment advisor, individual investments will be identified, recommended and considered for use towards achieving the desired money management strategy agreed upon. When an investment is either bought or sold, the Treasure and Finance Director will complete, date and sign an Investment Compliance Worksheet for each investment. The worksheets will be available for review by the City Manager and/or City Councilmembers at any time. In addition, the oversight committee will receive copies of each worksheet for their review and consideration. The compliance worksheet will address, but not be limited to, the following questions: A. Is this investment allowed by the Investment Policy Statement? B. In terms of its investment category, will this investment cause a violation of the dollar or percentage limit specified in the Investment Policy Statement? C. When applicable, does this investment meet or exceed the credit ratings set forth in the Investment Policy Statement? D. Is this investment appropriate within the context of the overall money management strategy formulated by the Treasurer and Finance Director?. The institutional fee only investment advisor will execute all purchases and sales of investments as directed by the Treasurer and Finance Director at institutional rates without fees or commissions paid. Further, the fee only investment advisor will provide the Treasurer, Finance Director, City Council and the Oversight Committee with the following information and reports: Investment Reporting: detailed monthly investment portfolio statement Quarterly portfolio performance report detailing both risk & return measures; such as time-weighted total rate of return, modified duration, portfolio distributions by quality, and portfolio distribution by maturity. A quarterly report comparing the performance of the portfolio against certain money market indexes. 1-16-96 Page 1 of 2 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Business Phone: 707-462-9053 Internal Control COYNE ASSOCIATES Accounting and Transaction Reporting: Complete transaction report for each investment bought or sold Cash flows audit report (monthly) · Realized gains & losses (quarterly) · Cash ledger (monthly) · Securities ledger (monthly) · Account reconciliation report · Complete transaction ledger (monthly) · Maturity report (quarterly) 1-16-96 Page 2 of 2 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Business Phone: 707-462-9053 Oversight Committee COYNE ASSOCIATES Investment Oversight Committee Members of the Committee: 1. City Mayor (Chairperson) 2. One other City Councilmember 3. City Manager 4. City Finance Director 5. Treasurer 6. Outside Investment Advisor The Committee will receive the following monthly reports: Copy of every Investment Compliance Worksheet for each transaction · Detailed Securities ledger · Detailed monthly investment portfolio statement Committee meeting schedule: Every six months the Committee will meet to consider the following: · Compliance review for the previous six (6) months. · Review and comment on the existing investment strategy employed by the Treasurer and Finance Director. · Make recommendations regarding the Investment Policy Statement · Review overall performance of the portfolio. 1-17-96 Page 1 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Business Phone: 707-462-9053 Definitions COYNE ASSOCIATES Finance and Investment Terms Defined TREASURIES: Negotiable debt obligations of the U.S. government, secured by its "full faith and credit" and issued at various schedules and maturities. The income from Treasury securities is exempt from state and local, but no federal, taxes. Treasurj/ Bi~Is-short-term issued 9f day, f82 day and 52 week increments 2. Treasurj/ Notes-intermediate securities with maturities of f to fO j/ears 3. Treasurj/ Bonds-long-term debt /nstruments with maturities of fO years or longer. BANKER'S ACCEPTANCE: time draft drawn on and accepted by a bank, the customary means of effecfing payment for merchandise sold in import-export transactions and a source of financing used extensively in international trade. With the credit strength of a bank behind it, the banker's acceptance usually qualifies as a "money market" instrument. MONEY MARKET FUND: open-ended mutual fund that invest in commercial paper, banker's acceptances, repurchase agreements, government securities, certificates of deposit, and other highly liquid and safe securities, and pays money market rates of interest. COMMERCIAL PAPER: short-term obligations with maturities ranging from 2 to 270 days issued by banks, corporations, and other borrowers to investors with temporarily idle cash. NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT: large-dollar-amount, short-term certificate of deposit. Such certificates are issued by large banks and bought mainly by corporations and institutional investors. They are payable either to the bearer or to the order of the depositor and, being negotiable, they enjoy an active secondary market, where they trade in round lots of $5 million. Although they can be issued in any denomination from $100,000 up, the typical amount is $1 million. They have a minimum original maturity of 14 days; most original maturities are under six months. REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (REPO; RP): agreement between a seller and a buyer, usually of U.S. Government securities, whereby the seller agrees to repurchase the securities at an agreed upon price and usually, at a stated time. Repos, also called RPs or buybacks, are widely used both as a money market investment vehicle and as an instrument of Federal Reserve monetary policy. Where a repurchase agreement is used as a short-term investment, a government securities dealer, usually a bank, borrows from an investor, typically a corporation with excess cash, to finance its inventory, using the securities as collateral. Such RPs may have a fixed maturity date or be open repos, callable at any time. Rates are negotiated directly by the parties involved, but are generally lower than rates on collateralized loans made by New York banks. The attraction of repos to corporations, which also have the alternatives of commercial paper, 1-16-96 Page 1 of 2 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Business Phone: 707-462-9053 Definitions COYNE ASSOCIATES certificates of deposit, treasury bills and other short-term instruments, is the flexibility of maturities that makes them an ideal place to "park" funds on a very temporary basis. Dealers also arrange reverse repurchase agreements, whereby they agree to buy the securities and the investors agrees to repurchase them at a later date. OVERNIGHT REPO: overnight repurchase agreement; an arrangement whereby securities dealers and banks finance their inventories of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds. The dealer or bank sells securities to an investor with a temporary surplus of cash, agreeing to buy them back the next day. Such transactions are settled in immediately available federal funds, usually at a rate below the federal funds rate ( the rate charged by banks lending funds to each other). FINANCIAL FUTURE: futures contact based on a financial instrument. Such contracts usually move under the influence of interest rates. As rates rise, contracts fall in value; as rates fall, contracts gain in value. Examples of instruments underlying financial futures contracts: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) pass-throughs, foreign currencies, and certificates of deposit. Trading in these contracts is governed by the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Traders use these futures to speculate on the direction of interest rates. Financial institutions (banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms) use them to hedge a financial portfolio against adverse fluctuations in interest rates. CALL OPTION: right to buy a particular investment instrument at a predetermined price before a preset deadline, in exchange for a premium. PUT OPTION: right to sell a particular investment instrument at a predetermined price before a preset deadline, in exchange for a premium Source: Barron's Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. 1-16-96 Page 2 of 2 Prepared by: Patrick Coyne, M.B.A., CFP Business Phone: 707462-9053 CITY OF UKIAH INVESTMENT POLICY PURPOSE This Statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's cash assets, and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's investment program. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash. OBJECTIVE The objective of the City's cash management system is to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus insuring the investment of funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield possible as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. POLICIES · Be 4, , e 7~ It is the policy of the City of Ukiah to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the cash flow demands of the City of Ukiah. The City's investments are authorized under and intended to comply with State of California statutes governing the investment of public funds, specifically with Sections 53601 and 53601.1 of the Government Code. The investment policy applies to all financial assets directly controlled by the City of Ukiah. These funds are accounted for in the City of Ukiah monthly financial reports. Management responsibility for the investment program resides with the City Treasurer and the Director of Finance. Management and elected officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activities that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program. Ukiah operates its investments program under the Prudent Man Rule· This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and any. other imposed legal restrictions, such as applicable under current bond issues. The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as possible, through projected cash flow determinations. The basic premise underlying the City's investment philosophy is, and will continue to be, to insure that money is always safe and available when needed. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The primary objectives, in priority order of the City of Ukiah investment program shall be: 1. ~afet~: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. 2. ~iquiditM: The, City of Ukiah investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City of Ukiah to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. 3. Yield: Within the constraints of safety and liquidity, the highest and best yield will be.sought. PERMITTED INVESTMENTS AND MATURITIES The City Treasurer and Finance Director are empowered to invest in the following types of securities: 1. Securities of the U.S. Government and its agencies. 2. State of California local Agency Investment Fund. 3. Banker's acceptances rated AA or equivalent or better. 4. Fully insured or collateralized Certificate of deposit with banks and.~ savings and loan associations. 5. Commercial paper rated Al/P1 or equivalent. 6. Corporate bonds rated AA by Moody's or equivalent or better. 7. Repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities. 8. Mutual Funds - Gov. Code Sections 53601(k); 53635(k). Maturities: The maximum maturities for corporate bonds will be five years and all bonds will be held to maturity. The maximum maturities for Certificate of Deposits will be one year. Ail other investments will be restricted to maturities of three years or less as required by statue. Mutual Funds: Mutual Funds must be invested in securities and obligations otherwise eligible for investments. The management company (fund) must attain the highest rating by two of the national rating services. The purchase price of shares may not include commissions. The fund must have five years experience with investing public type investments with a portfolio of at least $500 million. Investments will be limited to 10% of our surplus funds. SAFEKEEPING .' , ., Securities purchased from brokers/dealers'shall be held in third party safekeeping by the trust department of~ the City of Ukiah's bank. or other designated third party trust, in the City's name and control, whenever possible. R:Cm4 Investment INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES ., The primary objectives, in priority order of the City of Ukiah investment program shall be: 1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. · 2. Liquidity: The, City of Ukiah investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City of Ukiah to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. 3. Yield: Within the constraints of safety and liquidity, the highest and best yield will be.sought. PERMITTED INVESTMENTS AND MATURITIES The City Treasurer and Finance Director are empowered to invest in the following types of securities: 1. Securities of the U.S. Government and its agencies. 2. State of California local Agency Investment Fund. 3. Banker's acceptances rated AA or equivalent or better. 4. Fully insured or collateralized Certificate of deposit with banks and.. savings and loan associations. 5. Commercial paper rated Al/P1 or equivalent. 6. Corporate bonds rated AA by Moody's or equivalent or better. 7. Repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities. 8. Mutual Funds - Gov. Code Sections 53601(k); 53635(k). Maturities: The maximum maturities for corporate bonds will be five years and all bonds will be held to maturity. The maximum maturities for Certificate of Deposits will be one year. Ail other investments will be restricted to maturities of three years or less as required by statue. Mutual Funds: Mutual Funds must be invested in securities and obligations otherwise eligible for investments. The management company (fund) must attain the highest rating by two of the national rating services. The purchase price of shares may not include commissions. The fund must have five years experience with investing public type investments with a portfolio of at least $500 million. Investments will be limited to 10% of our surplus funds. SAFEKEEPING ~ f , Securities purchased from brokers/dealers shall be held in third party safekeeping by the trust department of~ the City' of Ukiah's bank. or other designated third party trust, in the City's name and control, whenever possible. R:Cm4 Investment CITY OF UKIAH INVESTMENT POLICY PURPOSE This Statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's cash assets, and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's investment program. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash. OBJECTIVE The objective of the City's cash management system is to accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues, thus insuring the investment of funds to the fullest extent possible. The City attempts to obtain the highest yield possible as long as investments meet the criteria established for safety and liquidity. POLICIES · It is the policy of the City of Ukiah to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the highest investment return with the maximum security while meeting the cash flow demands of the City of Ukiah. me The City's investments are authorized under and intended to comply with State of California statutes governing the investment of public funds, specifically with Sections 53601 and 53601.1 of the Government Code. e The investment policy applies to all financial assets directly controlled by the City of Ukiah. These funds are accounted for in the City of Ukiah monthly financial reports. · Management responsibility for the investment program resides with the City Treasurer and the'Director of Finance. · Management and elected officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activities that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program. e Ukiah operates its investments program under the Prudent Man Rule· This affords a broad spectrum of investment opportunities so long as the investment is deemed prudent and is permissible under currently effective legislation of the State of California and any. other imposed legal restrictions, such as applicable under current bond issues. e The City strives to maintain the level of investment of all funds as near 100% as possible, through projected cash flow determinations. e The basic premise underlying the City's investment philosophy is, and will continue to be, to insure that money is always safe and available when needed. SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION Percent Distribution Distribution of Sales Tax from sales within City limit.~ 1.00% City (some Cities may be less) 5.00% State General Fund 0.25% County 0.50% County Health & Welfare 0.50% Public Safety Trust 7.25% Total Distribution of Sales Tax from sales outside City limits O.OO% City 5.00% State General Fund 1.25% County 0.50% County Health & Welfare 0.50% Public Safety Trust 7.25% Total Other distribution of Sales or Use taxes Pooled taxes for which no point of sale is established (MRC will be calling back with an explanation of how these are distributed) SALESTAX.XLS 1/11/96 Page I Sheet3 SALES TAX DATA FROM MRC DATABASE Year-to-date as of Qtr 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 90-1 90-2 90-3 90-4 91-1 91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 94-2 94-3 94-4 YTD Tax (1,734) 6 910 25 436 401.047 835.576 1,263 719 1,758 684 1,772 206 1,795,900 1,823,991 1,813,042 1,833,365 1,860,656 1,869,353 1,866,458 1,858,965 1,842,168 1,833,586 1,854,790 1,898,272 1,946,264 1,994,775 2,048,570 Year-to-dat as of Qtr 89-1 89-2 89-3 89-4 90-1 90-2 90-3 90-4 91-1 91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 94-2 94-3 94-4 Tax for Quarter . (1,734) 8 644 18 526 375, 611 432 795 436,787 513 491 389 133 456 489 464 878 502 542 409,456 483,780 473 575 499 647 401 963 466 983 464 993 52O 851 445 445 514 975 513 504 574 646 Year-to-date Calendar Yr 25,436 1,758,684 1,813,042 1,866,458 1,854,790 2,048,570 Total by Calendar Year 199O 1991 1992 1993 1994 1,758,684 1,813,042 1,866,458 1,854,79O 2,O48,57O Yr-to-Yr Percent change '89 shows only late reported data N/A 3.09% 2.95% -0.63% 10.45% SALESTAX.XLS 1/10/96 Page 1 Sheet1 0 0 0 0 90-1 90-2 01-3 ~ ~ 91-4 ~ 9a-a 03-4 04-3 04-4 JAN--l?--96 WED 01 :56 PM M. R. C. 510 MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS A partnership of John T. Ausff,, Inc. & Allen W. Charkow, Inc. Tumtin Madera 5an R&mon $=cramento (71¢) ~$$-3000 (209) 432-6039 (SlO) 838-1115 (916) 971-4732 8~8 ~991 P.02 32107 W. Llndero Canyo~ Road Suite 233 Westlake Village, CA 91361 (818) 991-5220 Fax: (81~) 991-536~ MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: JANUARY 17, 1996 GORDON ELTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR LYNDA TREADWAY MRC SALES TAX INFORMATION FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY Per your request, attached is a spreadsheet which shows sales tax information for Mendocino County, including the cities located within the County. The spreadsheet specifically covers benchmark year-end third quarter taxable sales ( calendar year-end cash receipts) for the cities located in Mendocino County. This only covers the 1% taxable sales for both the cities and the county. In addition to the 1%, the County of Mendocino also receives a portion of the property tax, health and welfare (0.5%), local uniform sales/use tax (0.25%) of the cities portion, local uniform sales/use tax (1.25%) for the unincorporated area, and local public safety funds (Prop. 172). Also, the County of Mendocino receives approximately 39.1% of the county pool and 0.09% of the state pool. I am sending you, under separate cover, a (;opy of a white paper MRC prepared which discusses the pooling issue in detail. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me a (408) 954-8150. Attachment AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO... ].0a DATE: JANUARY 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: SET DATE AND TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL/STAFF 1996-97 BUDGET GOAL SETTING SESSION The schedule for the annual City of Ukiah Budget Process was adopted by the City Council at their November 15, 1995 meeting. The calendar includes, as in previous years, a Goal Setting Session with Staff and Council to provide an opportunity to review the progress made relative to last year's City Council goals and objectives and discuss new directions and policy issues for the upcoming fiscal year. Though last year's workshop encompased a full day, we believe we can accomplish our tasks in about three to four hours. The adopted schedule identifies this meeting to be held during the week of Janaury 29-February 2. In order to respond to existing commitments the first half of the week is most appropriate. Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday morning (January 29, 30, or 31) 8:30 am to 12:00 Noon or 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm, is recommended unless an evening gathering is desired. A room at the Conference Center will be scheduled for this Session. Staff recommends the City Council set the date and time for the 1996-97 Budget Goal Setting Session. RECOMMENDED ACTION' 1. Set date and time for City Council/Staff Goal Setting Session. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Determine session is not necessary and do not set date or time. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.' NA Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA ~ . (~ ~'/",,I Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant to the City Manager Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director, and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Adopted Fiscal Year 1996-97 Budget Schedule, pages 1-2. Ca~idace"H~sley, ~ity ~anager mfh:asrcc 96budg&o DATES ,/'November 15, 1995 ¢'December 19 ,/'January 9, 1996 January 23 January 29- February 2 February 22 February 23- March 1 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 BUDGET SCHEDULE ADOPTED - NOVEMBER 15, 1995 ACTION City Council review and approval of fiscal year 1996-97 Budget Schedule and set date for City Council/Staff Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session. Staff workshop to discuss basis of allocated costs (direct charges, internal service fund charges, indirect charges, "reimbursable credits"), asset acquisition, capital/operating budgets, etc., and initial discussion of department goals and objectives for 1996-97. Staff workshop to finalize discussion of allocated costs and secure understanding and buy off of process. Subsequent discussion and finalization of department goals and objectives. Department head meeting to prepare for Council worksheets (including payroll figures, allocated projections, etc.) distributed to Departments. session. Budget charges, revenue City Council/Staff Goal Setting session (one or two day meeting). Departments submit proposed budgets to Budget Team (Assistant to the City Manager and Director of Finance). Review of Department budget submittals by Budget Team. March 4-14 March 15-22 March 25-29 April 1-12 April 15-19 April 22-26 April 29-May 10 Initial individual Departmental Budget reviews with Budget Team. Review of total budget requests by Budget Team. Review of initial department budget proposals by City Manager and Budget Team. Individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Proposed draft budget figures and calculations completed by Budget Team. Recommended budget numbers finalized by Budget Team and City Manager. Final individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. May 13-17 May 20-23 May 24 May 28 May 29-31 June 3-5 June 6-7 June 10-13 June 14 June 15 June 17 June 19 June 24-26 mfh:9697budget BUDSCH Recommended budget figures finalized by City Manager and Budget Team. Budget message and document word processing completed. Final draft proposed budget completed and ready for staff review. Final draft proposed budget copied and distributed to departments for final review and comment. Departments complete review of final draft proposed budget and return comments to Budget Team. Final department comments considered by Budget Team. Final document completed and ready for production. Final document produced for City Council, City staff, and Public distribution. Proposed budget submitted to City Council with Agenda Packet. Proposed budget available for public review at Library. Proposed budget available for public review at Civic Center counter. City Council set specific dates and times for Budget Hearings. Three days of City Council (including Redevelopment Agency and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District) Budget Hearings held and Budget Adopted. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 10b DATE: January 17, 1996 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION - i) Authorize Mayor to sign Memorandum consenting to City Attorney's dual representation of City of Ukiah and Redwood Valley County Water District relative to the Commission; ii) Discussion of Draft #8 of Joint Powers Agreement The City Council designated Mayor Fred Schneiter as the City's representative at the meetings regarding formulation of a Joint Powers Agreement for the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission. The ad-hoc committee was a result of informal meetings sponsored by the Farm Bureau regarding the consequences of PG&E's temporary shut-down of the Potter Valley Diversion Project to this valley. Since that time, the committee has prepared several drafts of this Joint Powers Agreement and draft #8 is being submitted to the various agencies for their discussion and recommendations at this time. The Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission will have two main areas of focus. One is the future of the Potter Valley Project, and staying involved in negotiations regarding the purchase of the Potter Valley Project along with the continuation of the current diversions of water that are so important to this valley. The second focus for the Commission is the discussion and development of future water rights to meet the needs of an increasing population in Mendocino County. Mayor Schneiter will be presenting the draft of the Joint Powers Agreement at the City Council meeting, and discussing various aspects of the committee's discussions regarding the elements of the agreement. The issue of dual representation by the City Attorney, though addressed previously, must be formalized before additional Council discussion of this matter. The attached Memorandum from the City Attorney presents the issue and recommends action. Prior to discussion of the latest draft Agreement with the City Attorney advising the Council, consent to dual representation is to be acted upon. RECOMMENDED ACTION: i. Authorize Mayor to execute "Consent to Dual Representation." ii. Council review and discuss draft #8 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Council determine discussion is not appropriate at this time. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. January 11, 1996 Memorandum from representation 2. Draft Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement City Attorney regarding consent to dual ~a~ce Horsley, City Man~ge~ R:4/Can:ASP, JPA FROH F.'.~qPF'0F.'.T S.~ HF4E'.STON TEl David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston '1'O: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Law Offices Of RAPPORT ,4ND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 MEMOB. ANDUM Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers David J. Rapport, City Attorney January 11, 1996 Consent to dual representation (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 In February 1995, the City Council previously consented to my representing both Redwood Valley County Water District ("District") and the City of Ukiah ("Ukiah") in matters relating to the proposed Potter Vallev ^,;thority, (A copy of the memorandum disclosing the conflict is enclosed for your reference.' At that time Sonoma County Water Agency ("Agency") was trying to develop legislation to create a POtter Valley Authority, The Authority would have been empower, ed to negotiation with PG & E over the sale of the Potter Valley project and to charge all water users under its jurisdiction fees to fund any agreements it reached with PG & E. A group of lawyers representing different water interests in Sonoma, Mendocino and Matin Counties were meeting regularly 'to draft this legislation. The Distdct and Ukiah agreed that I could, represent both agencies despite the potential conflicts of interest disclosed in the attached letter. Since then, the Agency has abandoned efforts to form a Potter Valley Authority. Instead, it has initiated dtrect negotiations with PG & E for the purchase of the Potter Valley Project. Partially m response to this development, the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District") has spearheaded an effort to develop a joint powers agency which is being called the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission, The purpose of the Commission is to negotiate with the Agency and PG & E over the future of the Potter Valley Project and to explore and develop additional water for inland Mendocino County. The Commission is being justified by the argument that water interests in Mendocino County will be more effective in dealing with these issues, if they can do so through one organization, The Commission would be governed by a Board consisting of one representative from PVID, one from the District, one from the Flood Control District, one from Ukiah and one from the Board of Supervisors as the governing board of the Mendocino Water Agency. I have already participated in several meetings and suggested changes to drafts of the joint powers agreement. The purpose of this letter is to ask whether the City Council will consent to my continuing to represent it during the development of the joint powers agreement forming the Commission and in its dealings with the Commission, if it is formed. 8:~uMtrs 96~'¢c:wd,e~ January 11, 199~ ~D1-11-1996 [~4:olPr,1 FROH F..'.AF'POF..IT :~: HAR'._--:TC~N TO UKIAH F'.E~3 Memorand~ to Mayor and Coun¢ilmembers S~bject: Dual representation January 11, 1996 Page 2 Ail of the same potential conflicts exist in this representation as existed in connection with the Potter Valley Project. tn addition, more direct conflicts will arise here. For example, as parties to the agreement Ukiah and the District could have a number of conflicting interests regarding how each party should contribute to the Commission's costs of operation. As members of the Commission's governing Board, the representatives from the District and Ukiah could disagree on a variety of policy matters which the Board must address. If the representatives want legal advice concerning such matters, I could have divided loyalties and would receive confidential lawyer-client communications from each representative. AA explained in the enclosed letter, Rule 5~102 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibits a rr~e.~ mber of the State Bar from accepting professional employment without first disclosing his relation, if ;any, with the adverse party. In addition, a member of the State Bar shall not accept employment where he represents potential conflicting interests, unless he first obtains his client's written consent tc~ such employment. R~le 4-101 prohibits a member of the State Bar from accepting employment adverse to a client or former client, without the informed written consent of the client; relating to a matter in reference to which he has obtained confidential information in the course of his employment by the Client. These potential conflicts could significantly interfer with my ability to represent both parties, At the same time, however, under the existing arrangement it is less expensive for both the District and Ukiah, if they use me rather than hiring separate lawyers to represent their interests. In my opinion that added expense is justified only if the conflicting interests are serious or complicated, In these early stages in the formation of the Commission, I don't believe the conflicting interests of the District arid Ukiah are serious or complex. Disagreements over how much each member should contribute toithe Commission or what activities the Commission should undertake after it is first formed are not complicated. I don't believe either agency will be seriously compromised by representation from the same lawyer as to these types of issues. All of the Commission's members will have more common than conflicting interests in negotiations wi!h the Agency or PG & S over the Potter Valley Project. Under the proposed joint powers agFeement, the Commission will undertake specific water projects under "project specific agreements" among those members of the Commission who want to participate in the project. More serious and complex disputes may arise, when the Commission begins to consider specific water projects and the parties negotiate project specific agreements. At that time it may become necessary foi me to withdraw and for the District and Ukiah to retain independent counsel. Until that time, hqwever, it is my opinion that the additional cost of separate representation for the District and Ukiah ~s not necessary. Of course, you may justifiab y feet differently and prefer to seek separate representation immediately. If that is your preference, I would withdraw from representing both the District and Ukiah on matters pertaining to the Commission. if ~ou are willing to consent to my representation based on the disclosures provided in this letter and the terms as stated herein, please authorize the Mayor to sign this memorandum in the space indicated below. ,, If you have any qu6stions or need additional information regarding this matter, I will be happy to PrOvide that at your request. January 11, 199~ 01-11-19'_-36 04:02F'H FROH RAF'F'ORT 8.~ HAR'._--;TON TO LIK I AH P. 04 M~morandum to Mayor and Councilmembers Subject: Dual representation January 11, 1996 A~R[ED: F~ed 8chneiter, Mayor ATTEST: Cathy MacKay, City Clerk $~tllm96'~wcw~l.ct January 11, 1996 Pa~e 3 F_..~l-ll-:l. qq.~:, R4:R.'.:'PH FF.'.OH F..'.~PF'OF.'.T ~: I~I~F...:,T_N TO David d. Rapport Lester j. Marston Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 200 W. Henry Street P.O, Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 M_M--E NI.O R A N D U NI TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of i the Ukiah City Council FROM: David j. Rapport, City Attorney DATE: January 13, 1995 SUBJECT: Disclosure of Dual Representation and ~ Reqt~est for Co~%sent to Represent Our File No. U-1.3 i am currently representing the City on three matters which involve other clients, who I also represent or who Les Marston represents in the case of Willits. The purpose of this memorandum is to disclose the dual representation, discuss the Possible conflicts under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and request the City Council to authorize me to continue representing the City on all three matters, notwithstanding my representation of these other clients. The three matters are: (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 : I. Negotiation with the Cities of Willits and Fort Bragg regarding the use of the Ukiah landfill; ~ 2. Joint funding of a watershed sanitary assessment of the RUssian River watershed; and , 3. Participation in the drafting of legislation creating a potter Valley Authority to own and operate the Po~ter Valley powerhouse and diversion facilities. As to the first matter, Les Marston of this office represents the City of Willits and I have represented the City of Port Bragg on specific matters in the past. A~though Les and I do not have a partnership, we share office space, computer system, and secretarial services. Although we have taken precautions =o protect confidential communications from our respective clients, the possibility certainly exists that he could gain access to information in City of Ukiah files maintained by this office; and Janua~ 11, 1996 0 :!.-:1. :1.-L 996, ~.'-'~4: E~SF'f"I FROI"I F..'DF'F'OF..'.T :.'"."., I"lf-qF..'.'.--;TFIN TFJ I_1~<] 1[ ¢qH F'. Elr-S Memorandum to the Honorable Members of the Ukiah City Council January 13, 1995 Subject= Dislosure of Dual Representation and Request for Consent to Represent Page 2 I could gain access to confidential information he has received from the City of Willits which are contained in the files maintained by this office. As to the second and third matters, I represent the RedWood Valley County Water District. The Water District is one of the three agencies covered by the proposed letter agreement to share the costs of the watershed sanitary assessment. The Water District has also asked me to represent its interests in the development of legislation creating the Potter Valley Authority. Rule 5-102 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibit a member of the State Bar from accepting professional employmen5 without first disclosing his relation, if any, wi~h the adverse party, and his interest, if any, in the subject-matter of the employment. A member of the State Bar shall not accept employment where he represents, potential conflicting interests Unless he first obtains his client's written consent to such employment. In addition, Rules 4-101 prohibits a member of the State Bar from accepting employment adverse to a client or former client without the informed and written consent of the client or former client, relating to a matter in reference to which he has obtained confidential information by reason of or in the course of his employment by such client or former client. In representing the City of Ukiah in negotiations with the City of Wi!lits over the use of Ukiah's landfill, I have potential access to confidential information which Les Marston has received from the City of Willits; and he has potential access to confidential information which I have received from the City of Ukiah. We have taken steps to prevent the intentional disclosure of that information to either of us in the course of representing our respective clients in these negotiations. Our secretary has been instructed to make sure that any information coming from Willits goes exclusively to Les and that any information coming from Ukiah ~oes exclusively to me. Both of us have agreed not to l°ok at any of the files, either physical or on the computer, which may contain information of a confidential nature regarding these negotiations. Nevertheless, the possibility of inadvertent disclosure still exists. I'have also represented the City of Fort Bragg on matters where TOm Lonergan, its contract City Attorney, has either been unavailable or had a conflict of interest. There have been rela=ivety few of these ma~ters. None of them has involved solid s~\u\memosgS\disclose January 11, 1996 ~..-'~i-ii-i'~,~, 0.4:0.4PH FF..'.OH RAF'F'ORT ;~.; I'I~F...._-,T_N TO UK:IAW P.O? Memorandum to the Honorable Members of the Ukiah City Council January 13, 1995 Subject: Dislosure of Dual Representation and Request for Co~sent to Represent PaGe 3 waste matters or the landfill. I don't be!ieve I have received any information from Fort Bragg which would benefit Ukiah and I have not disclosed any information to Fort Bragg that Would disadvantage Ukiah in these negotiations. Nevertheless, I have represented Fort Bragg in the past and may do so again. i am the retained general counsel to the Redwood Valley County Water District. It appears that staff for the Redwood Valley County Water District, Miltview County Water District and the City of Ukiah worked out a percentage sharing arrangement for the watershed sanitary assessment of the Russian River watershed. I have not been involved in establishing ~hose percentages. I don't believe that it will compromise my representation of either Redwood Valley County Water District or the City of Ukiah to review the letter which has been submitted for approval of the City c©~ :.~il. However, to the extent that questions are raised, for example, on whether the percentages are appropriate, I could be asked to express an opinion which would possibly compromise my duty of loyalty to both clienlls. On the proposed legislation for purchasing and operating the Potter Valley powerhouse, i do not believe that Redwood Valley County Water District and the City of Ukiah have conflicting interests, but they could have different interests. Potentially conflicting interests might include portions of the legislation which address how the costs will be shared among the various affected ~ntities, how decision-making is shared among the variou~ ~ £ected entities, and how existing water rights or rights o~ use are treated by the newly created authority. I would endeavor to keep the City and the Water District informed, if any actual conflict arises during the course of the representation. With these disclosures in mind, I would, nevertheless, request that the City Council authorize me to continue representing it in these three matters. I would be requesting a similar consent from the Redwood Valley C~unty Water District and Les will be '¢ requesting a similar request for his representation of Willits. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding this matter. DjR:can cc: Charles L. Rough, City Manager Canuamy ~1, 1996 TOTAL F'. JO'rNT EXERCISE OF POWERS ~GREEME~ FOR THE FORHUL~TION ~D I~L~~TION OF THE M~OCINO CO~Y I~ ~T~ ~ PO~R CO~IBBION (CO~IBBION) THIS JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and between the following Public Agencies within the State of California, that is, Mendocino County Water Agency, (Water Agency), Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & .. Water Conservation Improvement District (Flood Control), Redwood Valley County Water District (Redwood), the Potter Valley Irrigation District (PVID), and City of Ukiah (Ukiah). The foregoing parties are collectively referred to herein as "the signatories". RECITALS: This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: A. WHEREAS, the Russian River and its tributaries are valuable resources vital to economic development, environmental .. quality and general well being of the signatories and their constituents. B. WHEREAS, the Eel River diversions into the Russian River Watershed are absolutely vital to that economic development, environmental quality and general well being; C. WHEREAS, the signatories recognize that a united voice is required of all of the signatories when it comes to issues relating to (1) the continued Eel River Diversion; and (2) the viability of the PG&E Potter ValleY Project; and (3) the potential sale by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) of the Potter Valley Project; and- .(4) to conduct negotiations and enter into agreements with agencies and entities located outside Mendocino County and with the State and Federal Government respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters. D. WHEREAS, this Commission will require financial resources to pay the costs of administration thereof and the cost of acquisition of water works, power works and related assets, as may from time to time become necessary. E. WHEREAS, Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government' · Code of the State of California authorizes the joint exercise by agreement of two or more public agencies of any power common to them. (f) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25680 et seq. of the Government Code, the parties hereto possess in common the power to study, discuss, formulate and recommend policies, action plans, and procedures for (1) the acquisition of water works and power plants and related assets and rights; and (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River Watershed; and (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; and (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; and (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters. .......... G. .WHEREAS, the parties hereto recognize that the exigencies of the problems in this area and within their respective jurisdictions require that they unify and coordinate their efforts in solving said problems by entering into this agreement to provide for the joint exercise of their said powers in aiding and assisting . . in (1) the acquisition of water works and power plants and related assets and rights; and (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; and (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; and (4) to purchaseor otherwise acquire the same; and (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting, Eel River and Russian River Waters; and (6) to formally establish a joint powers agreement to formulate, implement and execute such a plan, and to officially establish and structure the Board of Directors of said Joint Powers Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, Covenants and agreements set forth herein,'the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I - AUTHORITY SECTION 1.01. Legal Authority. This Joint Exercise of powers Agreement is made under the authority of Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California. ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS SECTION 2.01. General. Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article II shall, for the purposes hereof, have the meaning specified below: SECTION 2.02. Act. "Act" means Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 2.03. Commission. "Commission" means the Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission created pursuant to this agreement. SECTION 2.04. Fiscal year. "Fiscal Year" means the period from July 1 to and including the following June 30. SECTION 2.05. Board of Directors. "Board of Directors" means the governing board of the Commission established pursuant to this agreement. SECTION 2.06. State. "State" means the State of California. · · II ..... SECTION 2 07 Administrative Expense. Administrative Expense" means those sums of money required to be expended by the Commission from an administrative expense fund, to be established and maintained by the Commission, to finance those costs of administering this agreement and for carrying out the powers and functions authorized in this agreement which are not payable from the proceeds of either State or Federal grants. SECTION 2.08. Member. "Member" means a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission and includes an alternate member. SECTION 2.09. Eel River and Russian River Wa~ers. "Eel River and Russian River Waters" means any water originating in, or flowing through the territory of this commission in the Eel River or Russian River watersheds. SECTION 2.10. Potter Valley Pro~ect. "Potter Valley Project" means all of the real and personal property and other assets and works operated by Pacific Gas & Electric Company in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Project No. 77. SECTION 2.11. NEW WATER. "New Water" means the development of additional water for appropriation either by diverting or storing water not already subject to a valid water right. SECTION 2.12. MEMBER AGENCY. "Member Agency" means an agency which has signed and become a party to this Agreement. SECTION 2.13. SURPLUS FUNDS. "Surplus funds" means funds of the Commission which are not needed for its current operations (existing monthly expenses or expenses it will incur within ninety (90) days), to satisfy short term debt (debts due and payable within ninety (90) days), or obligated under the terms of project specific participation agreements as authorized by Section 6.02(A)(5) or other valid agreements of the Commission. SECTION 2.14. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL. "Right of first refusal" means the right set forth in Section ~. The Commission shall have the exclusive right to apply for additional water rights or otherwise develop new water on its own behalf or on behalf of its Member Agencies, unless: a. A Member Agency has undertaken an investigation of a Project"before the effective date of this Agreement; or b. Subject to the Commission protecting the confidentiality of the information provided by the Member Agency to the maximum extent permitted by law, a Member Agency has presented a written proposal to the Commission which contains, at a minimum: (1) The amount of water the agency wishes to apply for or develop; storage; . .. required; (2) The point or points of diversion and/or (3) (4) The dates of diversion and/or storage;' A description of the physical improvements (5) An estimate of project cost; · -- (6) A schedule for .making application and constructing the improvements; and (~) Such additional information as the Commission may reasonably request in order to evaluate the merits of the proposal (provided the information is reasonably available to the Member Agency without undue cost); and c. Within the time required by this subsection (b), the Commission has failed to notify the Member Agency that it will make application and construct the improvements in accordance with the proposal. The Commission must provide said notice to the Member Agency within six months after submission of the proposal, or within a shorter period specified by the Member Agency, if the Member Agency can demonstrate that a shorter response time is reasonably required to comply with the proposed schedule and the Member Agency has submitted the proposal Within a reasonable time after it first began to consider it; or d. After providing such notice, the Commission fails to make application or construct the improvements in accordance with the.proposal. ARTICLE III - PURPOSE SECTION 3.01. purpose. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide a united, coordinated, orderly, positive and more effective means for the following purposes: (1) the acquisition of water works and power plant and related assets and rights; and (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversions into the Russian River watershed; and (3) to lobby for the. maintenance of the viability of. the PG&E Potter Valley Project; and (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; and (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River. Waters;. and (6) to create sink funds, and; (7) to raise the funds necessary to support the administration of the commission by taxes, bonds, benefits of assessment, user fees and by all other legal means and to otherwise support the purposes of this agreement for the general benefit of all the citizens of the signatories by · (8) establishing a separate Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission; and (9) by vesting this Commission with power (a) to effectively coordinate the formulation, administration and implementation of the purposes of this agreement; and (10) to establish'appropriate operating and advisory committees to.conduct public hearings, to assist the Commission in carrying out the foregoing purposes and to assist the Commission in the implementation of projects and programs to carry out the purposes of this agreement. ARTICLE IV - FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION SECTION 4.01. Creation of Commission. Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public entity to be known as the "Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission", herein called "Commission." The Commission is a public entity, separate and apart from the parties to this agreement and said Commission shall administer this agreement. SECTION 4.02. Governinq Board. The Commission shall be governed by a Board of Directors composed of members from the governing board of each of the following public entities (1) the Water Agency one member, (2) PVID one member, (3) Redwood one member, and (4) Flood Control one member, and (5) Ukiah one member. Redwood, Flood Control and ~he ci~ shall also appoint from its respective governing board, one alternate me~er of the Board of Directors. The alternate may attend and~ participate in, but not vote, at any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Co~ission. The alternate may take the seat of the re~lar member at the commission table and may vote at any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Commission at which the re~lar member from the alternate's public entity is absent. A. Each me~er (and alternate me~er) shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing public entity. If a person serving as a me~er (or alternate) ceases to be a me~er of the governing board of the public entity that appointed such person to serve as a member (or alternate) on the Board of Directors of the Commission, he or she shall at the s~e time cease to be a me~er (or alternate) of the Board of Directors of the Co~ission. Such public entity shall proceed without undue delay to appoint a new me~er (or alternate) as the case may be. c~ 9G--£ ~--Nt~£ boundary. ARTICLE V - OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SECTION 5.01. Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Board of Directors shall elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members at its first meeting. Thereafter at its first meeting in each succeeding calendar year, the Board of Directors shall elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. Each officer shall assume the duties of his office upon election. If either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman ceases to be a member, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors held after such vacancy occurs. The Chairman shall preside at and conduct all meetings of the Board of Directors. A. The Board of Directors shall select a Secretary who may, but need not, be a member of the Board of Directors. The Secretary shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors and shall perform those duties and functions customary to the office of Secretary of a public entity. B. The Chairman shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Commission and perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board of Directors; and C. The Vice Chairman shall act, sign contracts, and perform all of the Chairman's duties in the absence from the County of Mendocino of the Chairman and in the event the Chairman is not able t°. so act due to reasons of illness, disqualification, or conflict of interest. 13 SECTION 5.02. Treasurer. The Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County of Mendocino is hereby designated as the TreaSurer of the Commission and as the depositary to have custody of all the money of the Commission from whatever source. The Auditor- Controller of the County of Mendocino is hereby designated as the Auditor-Controller of the Commission. The Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller shall have the duties and obligations set forth in Section 6505 and 6505.5 of the Act and shall assure that there shall be strict accountability of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements of the Commission. The governing board may select another treasurer or auditor controller after adoption of this Joint Powers Agreement. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino shall determine the reasonable charges to be made against the Commission for the services of the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor- Controller, such charges not to exceed the actual cost to the County of such services. SECTION 5.03. Bonding Persons Having Access to ProDerty. From time to time, the parties hereto shall designate the public officers or persons, in addition to the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor-Controller, having charge of handling or having access to any property of the Commission, and shall further designate the · . . . respective amounts of the official bonds of the Treasurer and Auditor-Controller and such other persons pursuant to Section 6505.1 of the Act. 14 B. Ail voting power of the Commission shall reside in the Board of Directors. C. A member of the governing board of the public entity that appointed such person as a member of the Board of Directors of the 'Co~mission may serve simultaneously as a member of the governing board of such appointing public entity and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission. D. No person while serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall be eligible to be appointed to any salaried office or employment in the service of the Commission nor shall he or she become eligible for such appointment within one year after he or she has ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission. E. The members of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall serve without compensation. This shall not affect in any way remuneration received by a local public official who, in addition to his responsibilities as a local public official, serves as 'a member of the Board of Directors-of the Commission. All members of the Board of Directors of the Commission may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as such members. Reimbursement of expenses shall be subject to approval of the Board of Directors of the Commission. SECTION 4.05. Reqular Meetings. The Board of Directors shall provide for its regular meetings. The date, hour, and place 10 -. of the holding of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors, and a copy of such resolution shall be filed with each party hereto. SECTION 4.06. Ralph M. Brown Act. All meetings of the Board of Directors, including, without limitation, regular, adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California). SECTION 4.07. Minutes. The secretary of the Commission shall cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Board of Directors and to each public entity that is a party to this agreement for approval at the next regular meeting of the Commission. SECTION 4.08. Ouorum. Three (3') members of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may adjourn, from time to time. An affirmative vote of at least three-(3) members of the Board of Directors shall be required to take action on all matters. SECTION 4.09. Rules. The Board of Directors of the Commission may adopt, from time to time, such by-laws, rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes hereof. · 11 SECTION 4.10. Office· The Board of Directors of the Commission may establish and maintain an office within the territory encompassed by the Commission as it deems will best facilitate the accomplishment of the objectives and purposes of the Commission. SECTION 4·11. Boundaries· The Commission shall encompass (1) all of the territory within and between the geographical boundaries of PVID, Redwood and Flood Control; and (2) it shall include all real property located in Mendocino County within the watershed of Eel River from the-Mendocino County/Lake County Line on the East to the toe of Cape Van Horn Dam on the West; and (3) the Potter Valley Project tunnel from Van Arsdale Reservoir on the North to the PG&E Power House in Potter Valley on the South - ..... ~-~,.~. Immediate after the Commission is created.and the first Board appointed the Board shall instruct an engineer to prepare a metes an4 boun4s legal 4esoription an~ a map showing the exterior boundaries of the Commission boundaries if it is require4 b2 law to ~o so or if the Commission ~eems it appropriate. The Commission may expand those boundaries as the Commission may from time to time see fit. If the boundaries of a signatory (other than the County) expand by annexation or merger beyond the original boundaries of the- Commission boundaries then the Commission boundaries will automatically extend to the signatories new 12 SECTION 5.04. Enqineering and Leqal Advisors. The Board of Directors may select, appoint, employ and retain engineering and legal advisors of the Commission, who shall perform such duties as may be' Prescribed by the Board of DirectOrs. The Board may select an engineer or legal advisor of one of the signatories to serve in these capacities. SECTION 5.05. Other Employees. The Board of Directors shall have the power to appoint and employ such other officers, employees, and may contract with consultants and other professional persons or firms as it considers necessary for the purposes hereof. SECTION 5.06. Compensation. The Board of Directors shall determine the compensation of, and pay from Commission funds (including payment from funds which the Commission may receive from time to time in the form of federal and state grants) the salaries, wages, fees and other compensation of such planning, engineering, legal, financial, or other technical and professional personnel, consultants, and other employees of the Commission. SECTION 5.07. Non-Civil Service. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as making the Commission a department of any party to this agreement or as placing any of the officers, counsel, personnel, or employees of the Commission under any other ... form of specially protected employment right or status. ARTICLE VI - pOWERS (*) SECTION 6.01. Subject to the limitations on the commissions powers set forth in Section 7.01 of this agreement, the .. 15 Commission is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do all acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers to accomplish the purposes of this agreement including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: A. As provided in the Act, the Commission shall be a public entity separate from the parties hereto. The Commission shall have the power to aid and assist in the formulation, administration and implementation of: (1) to acquire water works and power plants and related assets and rights; (2) to lobby for the preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenanceof the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters; · (6) to develop other sources of water for the benefit of the commission's constituents either alone or in conjunction with other agencies. (7) to raise the funds necessary to support the administration of the Commission and the~purpose of this agreement by (a) imposing taxes, (b) incurring bonded indebtedness and 16 issuing bonds, (c) by levying benefits of assessment, (d) by imposing user fees, and (e) by securing grants and loans from government agencies and others. (8) to establish appropriate operation and advisory Committees to conduct public hearings, to assist the Commission in carrying out the purposes of the Commission, and to assist the Commission in the implementation of projects and programs to carry out the purposes of the Commission; and (9) to further administer, coordinate, promote, carry out and implement the purposes of this agreement as referred to in Section 3.01 of Article III hereof. B. To make and enter into contracts; C. To employ agents, employees, consultants, and independent contractors; D. To acquire, hold or dispose of real, personal and intangible property, or any interest therein, by deed, purchase, lease, contract, gift, devise, or otherwise. E. To sue and be sued in its own name, except as otherwise provided by law. An action to determine the validity of any contract may be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) Title 10, Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. F. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations, provided that no debt, liability or obligation shall.constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any of the seFarate public entities that 17 are parties to this agreement; provided that the total debts, liabilities or obligations incurred in any fiscal year do not exceed the revenue received in the same fiscal year, unless in the form of a bond properly issued by the Commission. · . G. To apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other financial assistance from any agency of the United States of America or of the State of California, or from any other public agency or from other sources, public or private, and expend such funds for the purposes set forth in this agreement; H. To invest any money, that is not required for the immediate necessities of the Commission, as the Commission determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as apply to local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code of the State of California; I. To carry out and enforce all the provisions of this agreement; J. To contract for and obtain insurance against any --insurable risk reasonably anticipated to-result from the exercise of any powers or functions of the Commission or the performance of any duties by the officers and employees of the Commission; K. To make, adopt, amend, and repeal its by-laws, rules, ordinances, resolutions and procedural regulations not inconsistent with, and to carry into effect, the powers granted in and purposes of this agreement; L. To perform such duties and functions as may be 18 necessary or appropriate for the coordination of federal or state assisted programs and projects within the geographical boundaries of the Eel and Russian River watersheds; M. To do and perform any and all acts necessary to participate in federal or state assisted projects within, or without, the jurisdictional boundaries of- the Commission, including, without limitation, applying for, accepting and administering grants or other financial assistance from the federal government, the state, or other public agencies, or from any other sources, public or private, for such projects; to sue and expend such funds for any of the purposes as described or referred to in this agreement; and to enter into and carry out contracts or agreements in connection therewith which are not inconsistent with the purposes and powers of the Commission as set forth in this agreement; and N. To aid and assist member entities and other public agencies in the application for economic support of appropriate projects and programs. O. To adopt a seal and alter it at its pleasure. P. To acquire property through the power of eminent domain. SECTION 6.02(A). Delegated powers. The signatories delegate to the Commission the right to act on behalf of any and all of the signatories in the following areas: (1) to negotiate for and to purchase or o'¢herwise 19 acquire the Potter Valley Project from PG&E; (2) to lobby for the preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; (4) to lobby for and negotiate and otherwise deal with persons, agencies, and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Water supply issues (as defined in §2.09). (5) to apply for and otherwise develop water and water rights ("a Project") for the benefit of theterritory of the Commission, subject to: (a) the Commission's right of first refusal; and (b) a participation agreement among those Member Agencies participating in the Project that sets forth the terms of .. that participation, including, but not limited to, each Agency's participation in financing the Project', its share of project benefits and debts and its rights and duties, if the participating Member Agency seeks to terminate, its participation in the Project or its membership in the Commission. (6) Ail future water applied for by the various agencies will be applied for by the Co-mission to pursue a project subject to an agencies right to pursue a project if the Commission 4oms not exercise its Nigh~ of first ~efusal and apportioned upon withdrawal. 20 SECTION 6.03 Claims? All_claims and actions for money or damages against the Commission and its officers and employees are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title I of the Government Code of the- State of California. The Commission shall be deemed a "public entity" within the meaning of Division 3.6 of Title I of said Government Code. SECTION 6.04. Interests in Contrasts. The provisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090), Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 1100), and Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1120), Chapter"l, Division 4, Title I, and Sections 87100 et seq. of the Government Code of the- State. of California prohibiting certain financial interests in public contracts and pertaining to conflicts of interest shall apply to the officers, directors, and employees of the Commission. SECTION 6.50. Enforcement by Commission. The Commission is hereby authorized to take any or all legal actions necessary and permitted by law to enforce this agreement. ARTICLE VII - RESTRICTIONS ON POWERS SECTION 7.01. ~ Specific Restrictions. The following specific restrictions on the powers and functions of the Commission shall apply and be observed by the Commission: .. A. The Commission shall not interfere in the internal affairs of a member entity. B. The Commission shall have no veto power over grant 21 applications submitted to state-or federal agencies by a member entity. C. The Commission shall not have the power to acquire, by eminent domain or otherwise-, the water or water rights of a signatory hereto nor of any private water rights owners within the Commission's territory. D. The signatories do not delegate to the Commission their respective water, water rights, contracts with third parties Or between signatories, nor the right' to perform, enforce or negotiate with respect to the same. E. No tax will be imposed upon the citizens of the Commission without prior approval of the Boards of the respective signatories, and compliance with State law. F. The Commission shall not have the power to participate, by intervention or otherwise, in litigation or administrative hearings, between one of the members and any other party respecting that members water right or contract rights - relating to its water, without the consent of that member. ARTICLEVIII - METHOD OF PROCEDUR_~ SECTION 8.01. ~ssumption of Responsibilities. Upon completion of the initial organization of the Commission and the selection of a .Chairman and Vice Chairman, and the appointment of the Secretary and Engineering and Legal Advisor, the Commission shall proceed to carry out its duties and responsibilities as set forth in this agreement. 22 ARTICLE IX - FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS SECTION 9.01. Fiscal Year· The fiscal year of the commission shall be from July i of each year to and including June 30 of the following year. SECTION 9.02 Insurance . The Commission shall secure and maintain insurance for personal injury in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per person and $3,000,000 per incident, or more, and for .. damage to property of the Commission and others in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per incident, or more· SECTION 9.03. Contributions· The parties hereto shall each contribute to the Commission within 30 days of approval of this agreement by all five member agencies, the sum of $2,000.00. on - ~ ........... financial contributions other than set forth above shall be made only upon approval of the board of the Commission and ratification by the boards of the men. er agencies. q~d.~,,i,,*lk~.,,,t.-.l- ~ %,,,q~v uEf~,,,&J~'b,~ q,d~&&..~' d,,. ~,.~L %~l,J,.&~.c ~m,K*,i. ~.,4*%U&~,,4,--L ~i,,*--.L*~'&A~i.4. qm'~,,f&& ~ll~dl,. --.L J~' %d, ~--J~VAA %~,Im~' The expenditure of funds contributed to the Commission by the parties hereto shall be used only for ordinary administrative and operating expenses of the Commission and for payment of fees and costs incurred or to be- incurred by the Commission in connection with the execution of its purpose. 23 SECTION 9.04. Annual Budqet~ - .A. The Board of Directors of the Commission shall, on or before February I of each year, prepare and submit to each party hereto a budget estimate of the expenses of conducting the Commission for the ensuing year. B. The budget estimate shall be in such form as the · . Board of Directors may prescribe using the guidelines of the California State Controller. The budget estimate shall contain a summary of the fiscal policy of the Commission for the budget year and shall include data showing the relation between the total proposed expenditures and the total anticipated income or other means of financing the budget for the ensuing year, contrasted with the corresponding data for the current year. The budget estimate may include an unappropriated balance item to be available for appropriation in the ensuing fiscal year_ to meet contingencies other than contingencies resulting from temporary insufficiencies in the revenues of the Commission. C. After submission of the budget estimate, the Board of Directors shall fix a time and a place for hearing by the Board of Directors thereon. At the budget hearing the Board of Directors may increase or decrease any item in the budget estimate and may delete any item therefrom or add any new item thereto. Upon the conclusion of the budget hearing and not later than March 1 of each year the Board of Directors shall approve the 24 % budget estimate as submitted to the parties hereto or as revised by the Board of Directors, and thereupon the same shall constitute the final budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The several items of the-final budget shall be deemed appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year in the amounts and for the purposes specified in the final budget. SECTION 9.05. Records and Accounts, The Commission shall cause to be. kept accurate and correct- books of account, showing in detail the costs of administration, bond interest, bond redemption, operation and maintenance, and all financial transactions of the Commission. Said books of account shall be open to inspection at all time-during normal working hours by the public or any representative of any of the-parties hereto, or by and accountant or other person authorized by any party hereto to inspect said books of account. The Auditor-Controller shall, in accordance with Section 6505 of the Act, cause the books of account and other financial records of the Commission to be audited annually. ARTICLE X - TERMINATION_ SECTION 10.01. Term. This agreement-shall be effective 30 4ays after this agreement is approved by each of the member agencies, and shall continue until rescinded or terminated by agreement of all the- parties hereto, Provided that termination shall not occur less than six months before-the end of the fiscal year. 25 SECTION 10.02. (A) Disposition of Assets. On the termination of this Agreement, and subject to project specific participation agreements, as provided in Section 6.02 (A) (5), Surplus"money of the Commission shall be 'distributed to the Member Agency in the same proportion that the contribution paid by each Member Agency bears to the total contributions by the Member Agencies. All other assets of the Commission, both real and personal, tangible and intangible, shall be disposed of in such manner as the Member Agencies shall agree. Until the Member Agencies have agreed, the-Commission shall hold the assets in trust for them. (B) Disposition of Liabilities.'. To the extent permissible by law the debts and liabilities of the Commission shall not become the debts and liabilities of the member agencies. (C) ~ny debt incurred pursuant to a specific participation agreement shall be disposed of upon termination of this agreement or withdrawal of a member as provided for .in that agreement. ARTICLE_ XI - MISCELLANEOUS pROVISIONS_ SECTION 11.01. NOtices. Notices hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to: The Chief Administrative Officer of each party hereto or to such other person and address as a party hereto may request in writing to the Commission from time to time. Notice to the Commission shall be sufficient if delivered to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission. 26 SECTION 11.02. A~nendment of Agreement~ This agreement may be amended only by an agreement approved by all of the then participating public entities. Approval of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall not be required for amendment of this agreement. SECTION 11.03. Partial Invalidity. If any one or more Of the" terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants, or conditions of this agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever, by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining agreement shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extend permitted by law. SECTION 11.04. Withdrawal of Member. A Member Agency may terminate its membership in the Commission at any time after first providing the Commission with six months notice of its intent to terminate ("a termination notice"), subject to project specific · participation agreements as authorized by Section 10.02 (A), (B) and (C), upon termination, the Commission shall provide the Member Agency with its pro rata share of surplus funds of the Commission .as of thedate when the Member Agency first provided the Commission with a termination notice. SECTION 117.05. Notice to Secretary of State. The Secretary of the Commission shall beresponsible for preparing and filing the notice to the Secretary of State of this joint exercise of powers agreement, pursuant to the provisions of Section 6503.5 27 of the Government Code of the-State of California. IT WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and attested by their_ proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official~ seals to be hereto affixed, as of the date and year first above written. 28 (SEAL) · . ATTEST: MENDOCINO COUNTYWATER'AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO BY Chairman of the Mendocino County Water Agency County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California BY Deputy Clerk- POTTER VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT (SEAL) ATTEST: Chairman of the Board of the Potter Valley Irrigation District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino BY Deputy Clerk. REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (SEAL) ATTEST: Chairman of the-Board of the Redwood Valley County Water District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California BY Deputy Clerk 29 (SEAL) ATTEST: MENDOCINO COUNTY RUSSIAN RIVER FLOOD_ CONTROL AND WATER-CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT- DISTRI CT- Chairman of the-Board of-the- Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement-District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of' California BY Deputy Clerk CITY OF UKiAH (SEAL) ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Ukiah City Clerk 3O ITEM NO. '~Oc DATE: January 17, 1996 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ESTABLISH DATE FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DISCUSS AND DEVELOP GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUMMARY: At the November 29, 1995 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, it was decided that another joint meeting would be scheduled after the adoption of the new General Plan to discuss and develop an implementation strategy. Staff has prepared the necessary materials to facilitate this work effort and would like the meeting date to be established. Customarily, this type of meeting is scheduled for the fifth Wednesday of a month to avoid conflict with regularly scheduled City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Accordingly, Staff has targeted January 31, 1996 as a possible date for the meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Select January 31, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. as the day and time for the next joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Select an alternative day and time for the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Acct. No. (if not Budgeted): N/A Acct. No.. (if budgeted) Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: None Requested by: Planning Department Prepared by: Charley Stump, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Bob Sawyer, Planning Director Attachments: None APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City ~anager