Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-11-17 Packet
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 17, 2004 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2b. SWEARING IN NEW COUNClLMEMBER a. Adoption of Resolution Making Appointment to the City Council to Fill an Unexpired Term of Office and Administration of Oath of Office for New Councilmember 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2004 b. Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District of October 20, 2004 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations a. Approval of Disbursements for Month of October 2004 b. Annual Review of Traffic Signalization Fund for South Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street c. Rejection of Claim for Damages Received From Mark Nance and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund d. Adoption of Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding For Employee Bargaining Unit- Department Head Unit e. Adoption of Resolution Approving Records Destruction f. Approval of Purchase of Infiltration and Intrusion (l&l) Video Inspection and Data Management Equipment From Cues, Inc. in the Amount of $72,000 g. Award of Bid for Various Pole and Pad Mount Transformers in the Amount of $34,130.17 To Wesco h. Award of Sole Source Bid for Police Transcription Services Not to Exceed $19,026 and Approval of Budget Amendment i. Adoption of Resolution Approving Request for Assignment of City of Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage to NCPA and Assignment Administration Agreement for WAPA Base Resource Percentage and Authorization for City Manager to Execute These Documents . AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. . PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:45 P.M.) a. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project (Cont. from 11/3) The following Public Hearings require a quasi-judicial action; each City Councilmember must visit the site prior to the meeting. Failure to accomplish this task shall constitute grounds for recusal. b. Consideration and Action on Appeal Filed by Fred Bellows and Catherine Undermill of the Planning Commission's Conditional Approval of the Graeber Use Permit and Variance for Project at 290 Highland Avenue c. Approval of Application to Demolish the Structures Over Fifty Years Old Located At 308/310 East Perkins Street, Ukiah 8. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 9. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 10. CLOSED SESSION a. G. C. ~54957.6-Conference with Labor Negotiator Employee Negotiations: Directors & City Manager Labor Negotiator: Candace Horsley 11.ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. ITEM NO. 2b DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE At the November 10, 2004 City Council meeting, the City Council heard presentations from six applicants for appointment to fill the Council vacancy created by Councilmember Andersen's resignation, effective October 31, 2004. After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to nominate John McCowen to fill the vacancy. Another motion was made and seconded, but later rescinded, to adopt a Resolution making the appointment to the City Council. Council directed Staff to agendize the Resolution and Oath of Office for Council's consideration at the November 17th meeting. After the Resolution has been adopted by Council, the City Clerk will administer the Oath of Office to Mr. McCowen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Making Appointment To Fill The Unexpired Council Term of Paul Andersen and Direct The City Clerk To Administer The Oath Of Office ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine appointment is not to be made at this time and direct Staff accordingly. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Ukiah City Council Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution Making Appointment to Fill the Unexpired Term of Paul Andersen Candace Horsley, City~lanager ASR:City Council Vacancy 2004 ^TTAOHt3ENT ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED COUNCIL TERM OF PAUL ANDERSEN WHEREAS, Paul Andersen was elected to a four-year term as City Councilmember on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, Paul Andersen resigned from the position of City Council member effective October 31,2004, thereby creating a vacancy on the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with candidates who applied for this vacancy on November 10, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby appoint John McCowen to fill the unexpired term of office on the City Council that expires November 2006. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Eric Larson, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution 2005- Page 1 of 1 AND OATH OF OFFICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO) I, Marie Ulvila, City Clerk of the City of Ukiah, County of Mendocino, State of California, do hereby certify that at a Regular Council meeting of said City, held at Ukiah in said County, on the 17th day of November 2004, John McCowen was appointed to the office of Councilmember to fill the unexpired term of Paul Andersen, as appears by the records of said jurisdiction now in my custody, to November 2006. Dated: November 17, 2004 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and the Seal of the City of Ukiah. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF MENDOClNO ) I, John McCowen, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. John McCowen Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of November 2004. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on October 20, 2004, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 6:40 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Staff present: Risk Manager/Budget Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, Associate Planner Lohse, Finance Director McCann,..::~.City Attorney Rapport, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek, and Deputy City Clerk Ulvil; 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Airport Manager Paul Richey led the Pledge of Allegi 3. COMMENDATION 3a. Commendation to Ben Mercado Mayor Larson read the Commendation to of his neighbor, Lisa Bercinni, from certain ;rcado in recognitio~ the life ,ing. Police Chief Williams, speaking as a represen' the City of Ukiah, commended ,rcado for recognized his rapid response to a Public Safety Department of rming a life saving action and Frank Porzio, father of Lisa Bercinni, Mr. Mercado's heroic the City for recognizing . 3b. Pr~ Mayor Larson Awareness a sensil ~th an{ October as m crimes. ;ENTATION Violence Awareness Month October 2004 as Domestic Violence violence is a critical issue that requires and communities to prevent and Ana represent goals domestic vi, accepted the proclamation and discussed sexual assault in the community. 3. COM 3c. Presenl 2004 Cultural Plan by the Arts Council of Mendocino County Trudy McCreanor, of the Mendocino County Arts Council and Mendocino Ballet, discussed the quality and diversity of arts in communities. She discussed "Bridges to the Future", which brings forward local artists and regional cultural assets, and the Arts Council Cultural Plan designed to promote economic development opportunities. M/S Smith/Andersen supporting the Arts Council Cultural Plan, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 1 of 6 3. COMMENDATION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION 3d. Power Point Presentation of Valley Water Issues by Hal Wagenet Hal Wagenet, Chairman of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, provided a Power Point presentation to Council concerning the Ukiah Valley's water issues. Ana Araiza, Ukiah, inquired about who has responsibility for the flow of water and rocks or other obstacles that may cause a hazard in the Russian River in Potter Valley. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4a. Budget Hearings of June 29-30~ 2004 Deputy City Clerk Ulvila requested the minutes b meeting. to the next Council 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Larson read the appeal process. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Baldwin/Smith approving item "a" through a. Approved Disbursements for Septem[ b. Received Report of Acquisitic Marketing, L.P. in the Amount of c. Received Report to the City Coun( Brewer for the Series in the d. Authorized Di )f Publi Service, Inc. Amount Regional Air e. Authori Faci f. A ing a G' ~ment Code g. A Ukiah Mu Authorized the Amount of Adjacent to ~ent Calendar as follows: Equipment from Dell Services from Spencer in the Park Concert 631.9i a Change Order to Safety Striping Perform Additional Striping at the Ukiah 's Share of the County Animal Shelter I Waiving the 60-Day Notification Requirement for in the City (275 Cherry Street), Pursuant to 2 Approving Records Destruction; with Jeff MacMillen for Golf Professional Services at rse; ;r to Execute a Contract to Marvin's Garden Tree Service in to Perform Emergency Tree Trimming Along Gibson Creek Oaks Mobile Home Park. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Tape lb 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Larry Puterbaugh, 768 So. Spring St., Ukiah, discussed his concern for the safety of residents living near medicinal marijuana gardens in residential areas of Ukiah. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 2 of 6 City Manager Horsley explained that information regarding this matter will be presented at the November 3, 2004 City Council meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. Approval of Woodbury Maior Subdivision Map Application No. 03-57 Associate Planner Lohse discussed his Staff Report to Council and explained that approval of the proposed Major Subdivision Map (#03-57) would allow the 2.99-acre subject property to be divided into 38 individually owned townhouse lots and al .9-acre lot that will contain common-use areas, including the lockers, and common recreation facilities. He discussed and approval by the Planning Commission of a Major Si1 He explained that the proposed division of the site designed to provide a specific housing niche that wi development on the site or in the established by the approval of the tentative Ukiah General Plan goals and policies for and development standards of the R-2 Z¢ District, Plan approved by the City Council as part of ti Combining District. bborhood. map are housing, the Precis ~pproved driveways, storage round of the project Permit in 1986. sh uniquely-sized lots !nges to the existing addition, the lots ;istent with the use ;nt to the PD Public Hearing Opened: 7:33 p.rr Cliff Ruzicka, civil engineer re units are called townh( have title to underh given the right to ,se the by iect, explained that the potential purchasers will the existing tenants were Public Hearing Cl~ M/S Re Appli An~ n, Smith, B ABI None. Tentative ~division Map for Major Subdivision Map following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. 9. UN HED BI 9a. Awart h Line Clearin and Tree at Various Locatio, :he of Ukiah to West Coast Arborists Inc. in Amount N, from 10/6/04-Andersen) Public Utilities tor Ziemianek explained that this item was continued from the last meeting because Council asked for further clarification of the bids for tree trimming services. He reviewed the information contained in the Staff Report to Council. Councilmember Andersen explained that he questioned the previous report because of the close price margin and that it appeared that Davey Tree Service had won the bid. However, once Staff recalculated the bids, it was found that Davey Tree Service actually had the highest bid. He was satisfied with Staff's explanation of the bid results. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 3 of 6 M/S Rodin/Andersen awarding bid for high voltage line clearing and tree trimming at various locations within the City of Ukiah to West Coast Arborists, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,000, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. 10a. District Supply Contract City Attorney Rapport advised that the matter would be and that the purpose of the Closed Session is for the from its water rights attorney by speaker phone with and the attorney-client communication applies as NEW BUSINESS Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Russian River Flood Control in Closed Session to obtain legal advice potential for litigation, 10. NEW BUSINESS 10b. Approval of Fundin_~ En_clineerin City Manager Horsley advised that the In has requested that each agency approve fu several creek watersheds in the Ukiah area an~ provide winter water run off for Mr. per watershed. There are four the IW reviewed, this will mean al IWPC, Vice-Mayor Baldwin, originally of Unnamed a Comr (IWPC) George to study ne if there is sufficient flow to was approximately $1,500 if all five watersheds are City representative to the studies. Councilmember this division, in recommendation interesting to see h, also letter respo~ to M= ise ~am. Co~ ike Di ih, Chief of Operations for Luley about the Army Corps of Engineers' member Baldwin stated that it would be ilable from other drainage systems. He water. M/S ABSTAI~ ~ed, not to ~mbers ¢ ABSE funding of engineering review of watersheds, to be ,0, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. None. 10. NEW 10c. Council the er and Public Utilities Director to Purchase :ement Power Public Utilities Dire Ior Ziemianek explained that as a result of the loss of Western's contract on December 31, 2004, the City of Ukiah will need to replace approximately 21,100 megawatt-hours of energy spanning over 12 months during 2005. It is important the City firm up replacement power with suppliers as soon as possible. He provided a Power Point presentation to Council regarding the 2005 Need Evaluation, NCPA's pool of electric energy usage, electricity prices, and NCPA's market conditions. He also provided a summary of ISO and NCPA loads, natural gas spot market, forward natural gas prices, and the electric price outlook. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 4 of 6 M/S Smith/Baldwin approving the City Manager and Public Utilities Director to complete a power purchase, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. 10d. Applicants for Appointment to the City Council Deputy City Clerk Ulvila explained that at the October Council discussed options for filling the Council Andersen's resignation, effective October 31, 2004. At of Council to solicit applications from the public November election. She requested Council's cons' to interview each applicant. NEW BUSINESS Council Consideration and Direction to Staff with Re_~ard to Interviewin_q Council meeting, ;d by Councilmember it was the consensus idates running in the it would like Considerable discussion arose regarding appointing a special committee to licants Council, whether the current City Council or make the appointment, and not having Council to make a short presentation/state~ Council. for filling the ~cy, such as a reco! to in Nove~should but allowing each candidate Councilmember Smith posed a Mayor Larson were not reelected, Rodin and for the vacancy". City Attorney RaPl (FPPC) Act, would result in opinion regarding they were g the v a col that, of paying noted that )n. Ihe Fair Practices Commission since the Council position is salaried and He will provide Council with a legal ,~rs could apply for the appointment if ~. He went on to discuss the criteria for has until December 1st in which to fill a M~ the aud John Mc n, and spoke to the issue were Ana Araiza, Gordon Elton, iAshiku. It was the cons~ that each applicant would be allowed to provide a five minute presentati~ that the schedule be flexible so as to allow for a five minute public comment peri, in between presentations. The presentations by the candidates would take place at an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Council on November 10, 2004 beginning at 5:00 p.m. The application deadline is noon on November 4th. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Andersen apologized for his use of foul language earlier in the meeting. Councilmember Smith advised that although Councilmember Andersen did not fulfill his commitment to the voters to serve four years, he wished him good luck in the future. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that the issue of decorum warrants community discussion. He reported that the meetings of the Inland Water and Power Commission and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation have been fascinating. 9. CITY MANGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley provided a gift to Councilmember Andersen for his service on the City Council. Adjourned to sit as the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency: Reconvened: 9:20 p.m. Adjourned to Closed Session at: 9:20 p.m. ,m. 10. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFRERENCE WITH LEGAL CO Significant exposure to litigation 54956.9(b) (1 case) Reconvened at: 10:54 p.m. - ANTII ~t to Government ~ction 3N 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Discussion and Possible District Supply Contract M/S Smith/Rodin authorizing the carried by the followin~ Baldwin, and Mayor Nor N: ian River Flood Control Supply Agreement, Rodin, Andersen, Smith, ;ne. ABSENT: None. 11. ADJOU There being no furl meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Mari~ Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting October 20, 2004 Page 6 of 6 MEMO Agenda Item: 3...~b TO- FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers · City Clerk Marie Ulvila SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes: October 20, 2004 DATE: November 12, 2004 Every attempt will be made to forward the Draft Minutes of the October 20, 2004 Joint Meeting of the City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to Council for review on Monday, November 15, 2004. Memos' Council- minutes MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Special Joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council And Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wednesday, October 20, 2004 The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Joint Meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) on October 20, 2004, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Rodin, Andersen, Smit Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. Staff present: Water-Utilities/Project Eng Services Director DeKnoblough, Wastewater Tre~ Manager Horsley, Water/Sewer Engineer Te~ Manager McCann, City Attorney Rapport, Utilities Director Ziemianek, and Deputy Sanitation District Board Members Chairman Delbar. Ukiah Valley Sani present. Clerk U Shoem; District Secretary Burck, Community Manager Gall, City r, Accounting Stump, Public Ukiah Valley and was also 2. JOINT MEETING OF TH VALLEY SANITATION DI~ a. Discussion and Possible Between the UVSD and Construction of and Rehabilitat Public Utilities between the Ukiah to be discussed obligatior clarifyi by of for out in the re the from th~ plant as UVSD and cl UNClL AND THE UKIAH Cost Share rccment the De.,' n and ment Plant tvised that a cost share agreement Ukia Iley Sanitation District (UVSD) needs move forward on the financial Treatment Plant (WWTP) Project, ing a split, based upon the recent review I of potential building parcels available the City Limits. The Planning Department's approximately 40% (960 of 2,400 available) )posed to 23% (552). Staff is attempting to get the agreement on this important issue. Director Sho~ ',ommented on the proposed split, noting that the costs of the upgrade proje are being funded by the "users" or rate-payers, thereby making the split irrelevant. He proposed a compromise of 68/32 split. Throughout the meeting proceedings, the following issues and/or points were discussed, reviewed, and/or clarified: * Financial projections (increased fees vs. cost of WWTP upgrade) * Consideration of an undetermined "split" (no allocation) * Costs of the upgrade project being funded by the users, or rate-payers, thereby making the split irrelevant Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District October 20, 2004 Page 1 of 4 * Historical methods utilized in determining cost sharing (based upon the number of users/rate-payers) * Large development in the County vs. small/incremental development within the City Limits * The need to rely on a General Plan for determining the development of vacant land * The need for an analysis of underdeveloped and/or underutilized parcels within the UVSD (similar to the analysis performed within the City) * Various methodologies utilized in sizing the proposed treatment plant upgrade * The CEPT process and the impacts that said proc may have on the available ESSU's * Maximum capacity of the current plant, with tial land acquisition, expansion, etc. * Legalities associated with a potential im the City and the UVSD, such as arbitration procedure/dis resolutio cedure included within the current Cost Share Agreeme~ * Taking a "regional" approach to the split, which may potentially impose * Potential impacts should a funding a (financial and technical) * Should UVSD entertain a 6~ fee Ordinances recently ado * Consideration of implementin( (such as reaching in ESS * Requirements age~ * Various meth~ ~d in * Apparent sociate~ suggesting rather than the pr financial the U ation be delayed need to reassess the Share Agreement fee structures, etc.) the ESSU's the City and UVSD entities, in the future (UVSD without the City Folh a lengt M Idwin/Smitl comp~ e split of Sanitati, and move incorp0oratin the following ro Baldwin, and M ~e previous Council decision and approving a the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley ~cting the City Attorney to work with County Counsel to preparation of a draft cost share agreement, ments presented throughout the discussion; carried by vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. M/S UVSD Director Baldwin/Shoemaker approving a revised compromise split of 65/35 between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, with 65% going to the UVSD and 35% to the City of Ukiah, and directing the County Counsel to work with the City Attorney for the City of Ukiah to move forward with the preparation of a draft cost share agreement, incorporating other modifications as indicated by Director Shoemaker, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Board members Shoemaker and Baldwin, and Chairman Delbar. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District October 20, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Public Utilities Director Ziemianek requested item "c" be heard next due to the amount of audience interest. c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Processes Associated with the Development of a Draft Policy Pertaining to Will Serve Letters Public Utilities Director Ziemianek advised that staff recently completed a review of the ESSU request process as directed by both the City Council and the UVSD. As a result of the review, Staff has recommended new request process based upon the following objectives: 1. Make ESSUs easy to request by residential, customers 2. Insure appropriate measures are in place to 3. Set appropriate time values in the process 4. Set appropriate checks to assure "sandl 5. Take into account Iow income housin and industrial SSUs relinqL the units units doe,, place needs He reported that based on the above diagrams, addressing housing developments, with the folh ~s for th modify, and/or approve: Option 1. Pay full ESSU fee upfroi Option 2. Pay three-fo Option 3. Pay half ~pfro completed various flow as well as other project and UVSD to discuss, He went on to UVSD, including amendm~ by the City Council and the ~e Will Serve process, General Plan matters. M of the W, ewer Engin Emro ~nes, and at spoke to the issue included City of Ukiah McArthur, Mike Johnson, Estok Menton, It was the meeting. ~e City Council to continue this matter until later in the b. Present; and Possible Action Re.qardin.q the SuQ.qestions of the Value En.qineerinQ Team Desi.qn Review of the Proposed Brown and Caldwell Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Utilities Director Ziemianek advised that during the week of August 30th a Value Engineering (VE) Review commenced on the engineering details and design of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant. Staff will provide an additional update at the next joint meeting of the Council and UVSD. dl Update and Review of Staff's Action to Obtain Additional ESSUs by Existin; CEPT Process and Additional Polymer Enhancement Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District October 20, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Public Utilities Director Ziemianek advised the Chemical Enhancement Primary Treatment (CEPT) process was undertaken to obtain additional capacity out of the VVVVTP facility until the new plant is under the construction. Since the adoption of the CEPT program, Staff has been monitoring the results and overall chemical balance of the plant. The results have been very good and indicate an increase in available ESSUs up to the maximum (15%) suggested by Brown and Caldwell is warranted based on these results. He went on to describe the methods utilized in preparing the analysis and options presented for Council consideration. c. Discussion and Possible Action R, with the Develo of a Draft Polic, Letters (continued from earlier in the me~ Discussion continued with regard to the a, recommended various amendments to the ti polices/flow diagram, noting his support for those that do not make it through the 3 Associated to Will Serve_ Shoemaker prese in the proposed lpturing an a~fee for Director Delbar requested that if the timeli flow diagram, that provisions be for dis~ the project, suggesting variou= stated that an upfront fee is no draft policy should be available for ti as suggested in the to occur with Staff to assess proposed process, and he ,int. He advised that the meeting. Councilmember other jurisdiction= Sebastopol contactt o have time to see how issue. Cities such as Cloverdale and There pro proc nd dire~ and UVSD to concur with the ~= recommendations for the Will Serve in like polices from close jurisdictions. m There b IRNMENT further EETIN_C. iness, the meeting was adjourned at 6:26p.m. Marie Ulvila, De Clerk Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District October 20, 2004 Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO.: .Sa DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2004 Payments made during the month of October 2004, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the five (5) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 57834-58100, 58180-58366, 58441-58562 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: none Payroll check numbers: 57757-57833, 58102-58179, 58367-58440, Payroll Manual check numbers: none Void check numbers: 58101 This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of October 2004. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Mike McCann, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED: Candace Hor~ley,- City Mana~)~r KRS:WORD/AGEN DAPOCT04 m o ,< ~r~ 0~: ~o > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r~ ~ 6'4 O0 O0 CO O0 '42 kO 6'4 6'4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o r.j 00 O0 · , Oh cq ~ or.~O r~. r~o~ O~ o~ o o O0 O0 O0 00000 o 0 o o o o o o o o . · o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ooooooo . . ~0~0~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ · · 0 , · . , 0 · oogoo~g ~ g ~ ~ O0 O0 ~ ~ 0 O~OE~OOE~ 0000~ Orm ~:o o~ n~ 0 i © H O~ H © i ~o 0 o H c> o ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo o o o o o o o o o o ~o oo88 °° oo88 00000000 ~ ~ oo~0303~oo o 0 0 (J © ,< o o o o o o ~o , o o · o 0 E~ OE~ (JO N O o o o 0 H o o0 8~o88~O8o oo 00000000 ~o~o 0 O~ O~OO~o · , , 0 , , 0 o o~o OO n~ H 0 © ~n~o O~(J :~O O C~ C~ OH © (J O~ ~o E~ H ~88° ~oooo~~ O~~OOOO ~OOOO~~ O H o o o o oo oo oo oo oo oooooooooooooooo o o ~°° O0 000 O0 000 O0 o o o 1.1'3 0 u"} l,~ o o 0 u~ ~ 0 ~oo~oos~oos~~o O0 ~0 O0 ~ 0 000~000000~~0 00000000~00000 00000000~~00 00. ..... 0,,, ~oo~o~oo~oo~~ ~ ~ oo ~... HHH~HHH~ ~H0 ~ o ~ C~C~ HH~ OOE~ F~ H 0 0 O~ 0 H H i © E~o i ~ rJ . o > o o o o H~ 0 OHHO00 oo~ ~o o~ ~o H ~ o o o H HE-, E-, o OE~ ~0 O~ o ~ H o o (DO o n~ E~ © © o,< ~o ?? 0 O OOOOOO oo~o OOOOOO OOOOOOOO O OO OO OOOOOOOO ~ooooo~~ ~o o SS O o o o o o o o m~ 0 OOOOOO OOO~O~ OOOOOO OOO~OO §Soosoo~soos OO OO OO OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO~OOOO ~oo~oo~~ O ~ ~ , , ....... , , °~oo~2~o~o O o ~ H o © o O i i i O © H o 2;O © o~ ~HHHHHHHHHH H 00000000 0000 0000 0 0 o o o · o o 00 . o , o H o o o · o · © ,CH HO © o oo oo oooooo oo oo oo oo oooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o~ 0000 oooo O u..4 ~ 0 o o o o o o · . 6'4 04 o o · . ~0 · H o~o o o o o o · 0 o o ~4D ~D · · o o o cq ~ · 0 C~C~ r,z.1 r,z,1 H H i--.~ OO~ ~O o o o o,1 o,1 , o o · , OH ¢~ 0 oo o oooo o o o o ooo~ o o o o o ~ oo ~ ~ o o o88o ~ ~ o 8 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o o r-4 E-, H ~ ~O 00 c0 o 6oooo · . 6xl OU~ ~OOO000 C~ ~ 0 O0 0 ~88 © o8 ~ H H ~J~ r~ ,-4 0 o O~ ~o > o o o o o o o o o CD 0000 o o {20 o o o oo 000 o~ o cD o o o o o o o o o oD 00 o o o · · . ~° Om ,<o O DJ H ~ H r./'} 0 ~0 ~ H 0 © (J O r.4o {2> r-4 r~ ~o o ~o on~ ~H H o o o c~ c~ o o o o o o o oo ooooooo oo o ooooooo 0 0 o · , ~ ~oo o o ooooooo o o~ooooo ~ o ~ooo~oo o ~ooo~oo H~HHHHH0 o o o · o 0 o o © o o 0 0 H © ~ . Om o o O~ > S O~ ~o ~ · o > i O,'~ >-, E'-'O i ~ > c~ LD 00 0'~ o o o o o o o o r'~ ~ .,,cc o o Ln O O o~o OOOOOOOO OO OO OOOOOOOO oSS~~ooo o .ri 6'4 ~ O O O O O O 'ri O O O O O u,.4 D.-, O O O O . O 0'3 · cq o $ o o o . · o o ~ t.--I . o o o o ,r--I ,-4 H HO Soossoss ~ o o OO O O O O OOOOOOOO OO O O ~o~oo~ ~o o o ~~ooo ~ ~ ooooo~ oo o o · . . . , · , . , , ooooo~ H H H H H SSoSSoo ~0~0000 D ~ O i O~ O© mmm HHHHHHHH H (.) I~ 0 Iz, i O~ ~0 i ~ r..) · o ooooo ooooo ooooo ~o~ 0000 0000 0000 O0 0000 0000 000 0 0 OoOO o o o oo · . o oo · . . o o o ,ri , 0 S a~ r~ or..a ~ ~0 or~ 0 H~~ ~0000 i E~o H ~ r,j . o o o o o o o o o o [13 ~ 0~ oo~°°~°° 000000000000 00~~ O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-I o ,,--I 0 oo~ oo ooo · , 0 0 0 ~0 o r~ © O0 O0 O0 000000000000 000000000000 ~~o~O~o~ ~o ~ 00~0~0~00000 0 ~o~o S n~ OU~ 0 i 0 © ~0 O~ © © ~0 0 i HHHHHHHHHHHH ~000000000000 ooo 000 oogg~g~ ~000000000000 ,~1 ~.,r~ 0,< E-,o i ~ r.J · o ::> o o o 00 oo o oSSooss o oo ooooooo o o iiiiiii 0 0 HO 88© ~oo o ooo · · , · , oo~o °°~°~S O0 O0 0000000 ~~00 00000~ 0 O0 0 i ~o~o~g~ o o .,-I · 0 ~° O~ ~ 0 0 [~ 0 O0 ~:~ r~O 0 ~oo 0 O0 0 0 0 O O I.~ O O O O O O O O O o o 0 0 oO O0 O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ;~;~;~;~oo o oo oo;o~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0 0 ~) 0 0 0 , 0 . 0 0 ~3 0 0 · °g ,< 0 , 0 C> 0 O OOO OOO · 0 · O · 0 0 ~°~ oo~o~soos~oo~oo ~ O ~O ~ ~O HHCH~H~Hffi~HHHHH~ DD~DODOD DDDDDO~ HH H~H~H HHHHH<~ 0 0 ~ r,,.) H © I.-t ~HHH d H O i 0 0 00000 0 0 00000 0 O0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 0 O0 00000 0~0~ O0 0~~ o · ~HHHHH © H 0 r~O 0 r~ r~ ~0 ~0 0 i r,J · o > o o o o o co o o o o o o o · , · 0 I--t H o 0 i (.9O 0 OO ~m © O~ rj . o > o L~ 0 O0 O0 0 0000000 00000 0 0 00000 O0 00 00 oS 0 0 oo o o oooo oo o ooo o oo o oooo~o ooo~~ © i HHHH~HH0 ~O~ ~O~ ~o~ o~ HHHH~ O~ HHHH~O O O O O O O · 0 O O C~ 0'1 · . O O ,--I ¢,q · O O O O ,--I H H ~0 i i 0 n:::: rJ 0~ 0 ,_..] r~ © O~ i 0 0 ~ r.j ~ O~ 0::z: 0 O0 n::: ,..-] rjr.2 U ~o > o o o Ln Ln O O kn ~n o o D~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o t~ ~ o o o i.n u-~ o o o o o o [13 LD O OO OO OO O~ ~ oo~~~ ~ o o o o~ ~ oo~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O OO ~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o~~~~oooo o ~oo~ ~o O u,4 ~ 0 ,,~ o o · o · o · o o H (.9© o~ Hi-tO o oooo o88o88oo oo o 88 8°o o OO O~O O O OOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOO ~OOOOOOOOOO~OOOO OO~~~~OO~~ OOOOOO~~~OOOO o o ~ o88oo o o o ~ ~2~ o o ~ ~ ~ HH~~~~HH~~ ~HHHHHHH HH~HHHH HH~~OOO~OOHHOO~O .0.0 ....... 0 ...... O~ :::4O H U © O~E~ o O~ rj · > o o o o oo ooooooooo ~°~°°~°~ ~ ~ oS O0 O0 0 L¢~ I.~ 00 00 00 00 0 0 O0 O0 0 00~~00~ 000000000 ~o~oo~o o o . , o o , i i 0 o or~ R R ~0 2~0~ 0~ r~ 0 r~ H ~ ~ c~ c~ o c) c) O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 00 00 00000 0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 0 ~°°~°~°°~°~°°~~ ~ ~ ~ 000000000000000000 0 0 o8oo88o 0 O0 0 0000000 ~000000 , , o OOOOOOO 0000000 HHHHHHH i i oUU~UUU© o~ o o HHOI~ ~0 ~os~oo~oossoossosso oo oo oo o 000000000000000000 ~o~oo~o~oo~o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ O~ O ~O OO O~O~O~O~OOOO~ .,..,...........,0 OOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOO OOOOOOOO~O~OOOOOO Oo r.j ~ Oo 0 ~ O~ 0ooooo ~00000 H 0 E~O ~ ~1~ 0 ' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~0 0 o ooo oo gg o gg~o o ~oo~ 00000000000000000000000000000 oo oo o oo o oo ggoggoogo gg o o o o o o o o oo o oo oo oo oo oo oo o~~o~o~o~~oooo o oo oo oo~~~~~~oo oo ooo oo o o o o o [FI o o o o 0 0 o8oo88oo8oo88oo8oo88oo88oo8oo 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000000000000 o oo o oo oo ooooo o ~~~~0~0000~0~000~~ 00000000000~0~~000~0~0~00 00000000000000000~0~0~~000 o ~~o~ ~ o o~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0000000~0000000~0~0~00~00~0~0 o oo o · . , oo o · oc~o · , 000~ 0 ~0 oo Oo 0 ~ 0 © ~° 00000000000000000000000000000 ~HHH ~0 ,~0 rj H i 0 E~o rj · > o~ u~ ~ o o o o ~:oo:oo~:oo~~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o i i 0 0 fl) H oos%~SSoosoo O0 0 O0 O0 000000000000 000000000000 O~OOOO~O~O ~O~O~O~ OOOOOOO~O~OO OOOOOOO~O~O~ HHH~OHH~HHHHO H o~ o 0 r4 H D..1H r..r~ H ~ r..d i H 0 ~000000000000 0 O0 00000000 00000000 ~ 0 o~ o o 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ooSooSSo oSooSSooSS o o o o o o o o o o o o oo oo oo oo 0 0 0 6~ 6'4 o o o o · . o o · o o (]1 , °~ O0 © © o o · , 0 00 ,-I o osoosoossoossoosoos 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 ~~o~~~~o ~ oo o o~°~ 00~0000~00~00000~00 00~00~0~00~00~00 O~ 6 ~ ~ ~0 0 ooooo oo ooo ooo oo O~ E~o ~j · o > o o o o o o 0 O0 O0 0 0 000000000 ~ SS~SS~SSo oo o 0 000000000 co oo o o o o 000000000 o~~~oo o 000000000 0 0 o o · . ~ o o ~ o . . o o o cD O0 o o · o · o o · Eo~EooEEo O0 O0 0 000000000 ......... 000000000 ......... ~0~00~0 ~00~00~ .,....... o ~oo~o~ 0 ~ O~ O~ ~HHHHHH~HO o o o ~ H r.z.1 ~ © o~ o o o ~-4 EooEgooEo O0 O0 0 000000000 0 000~000~ ~00~~ oo~oo~oo O0 O~ ~ 0 ~ ~000000000 000000000 0 r-z1 O~ o~~~~o oo o 0000000000 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 CD 0 t'".- t"-- o o o o o o oo oo oo o oo~oo ~~o oo~o o ~ oo 00000000000 0 ~ 00 00 0 0 00 00 o o o o cq o o o o 0 0 o~o~oo~ 0 O0 O0 000000000 ~00~0~0~. ~0~~0~ ~~o~o .... , ..... o~oo~o~o 0 O0 O~ 0 o o o o o o 0 o o · o o . . ~0 H :~taO 0 ~ © oo oo~~o 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 o o 00 co 0 O~ , , ~ 0'3 co cq ~.D cq H {DO o~ · , n~tJ O~ ~OtJ 0 0 H 0 0 0 ~J ~ ~0 0 > ~ ~ O~ O~ ~ O~ E~o > i o ~O~o 0 ~ · H 0 00 og ~ t~. o~ o o I.D oo oooo oooo oooo o o oooo o o o o o~ 0000 0000 0000 0000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 0 ~oo oo ~O~o ~o o ooo · 0 ~HO o oo~ ooo · 0 · ~$° o~o oo oooo oooo ~°~ 00~0 · · . · °°~ O0 0 00~0 0000 0 ~ H 0 ~., O0 © ~000 i o~ > o o o o o o o 0 o o o o'1 ~ · o o ,.-i HHO CZ:: ~rJ O~ 0,< o H ~oc, o H 0 o o~ o ~ H 0 H H ~ o E~o > O O O OO OO OOO OO OO OOO OO OO 00 00000 000000000000000000000 0 o 00 00 · l~ 0 , 0 · O0 O0 O0 O0 O~ O0 O0 00000000000~00000~00000000 · ~ 0 ~ O~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000000~0~0~00000000000~ ~000000~0~~00000~~0~ o~ ~ ~ 0 ~H H~H~O H~H~HHO~O~ ~H ~0 O~ Uo 0 ~ 0 0 o H o000000000000000000000000000 ~000000000000000000000000000 O~ O~ On~ H 0,< H ~ U · ~0 o :> 0 ~0 c0 o ooooo oo o ooooo o~o o o o o 0 u,4 ~ 0 oo o ooooo ~o~ ~°~° 0000~ 00~ 0 o o o · o . o ~ . · -~ c~ · g° O~ ~0 (.9O 0 {,8 0 O0 d O~ 0% 0 0 ~ i > 0000 0000 0000 0 O0 0000 SO 0 0 o~oo o o o~° oo~o oo o oooo ~0~ O0 OOOO HHHH ~~0 HHHHO © 0 HO ,..J~ O~ i OH ~:Z: i I~ H 0 0 O~ © 0~~ ~0000 0 i . rJ ~ H . 0 0 ~ ¢::::1 ~] H i i O~ > c> o o o o o~~o 000000000 000000000 000000000 O0 0 O0 O0 00000000000000000 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 O~ O0 0 O0 0000~~ oo~oo~§o~ O0 O~ H HHH I:Z:: Or~ fJ"J H - ~ I Or~ oo ~ H~ 000 r-,.~ H H H H H H H H H I--t i i H H i i i H i 0,< E~o r~ · > O0 O0 0000000 oo o ooooooo ooooooooooooo 0'~ o o ~ L,~ o o {,.,,, ,P4 ~-I o o o o oooo oooo O q.4 ~ 0 o H o o o o o o · o LC} Ln · 0 ,ri 'ri 0 0 , o~oo o oo oooo ~°° ~ O~ ~H~ 0 o o o O~ r,J% r Jo OHHHHHHH H ~,-~ ~--] 0 H H O0 o~ rJ · o o O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 g~gg~gg~gg~gg~gg~gg~ggg~gg~gg~g~ggoo o oo o oo oo o o o oo oo S~SS~S~SS~SS~S~SS~S~SSS~S~oo o oo oo oo oo oo oo o ooSSoo~S~ o 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~0~0~00~0~0~000~~0~0 00000000~0000~00~~0~000~0~0~0000~0~ 00000000000000000000000~0~0~~00000000 000000000000000000000~0~~~0~0~00 o o ,.-.i n:::: r.J o~ 00000000000 000 000000 000000 O0 oo o oo oo oo o~ O0 0 O0 000 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000~0~~000 0 d H ~ 0 O0 0 00000 00000 O0 00000 0 00000 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 ~oo~ O0 00000 00000 0 o~oo~ 0 O0 ~o~~o 00 00 00 · 0 ~ 0 · . ~ 0 O0 ~ · 00 00 00 . 0 ~ · . o~ [13 · > 0,< ~o H ~ ~ . > oo ooooo o oo ooooo o o o o 0 0 o oo ooooo oo DD DD~ mm mmo ~ o~0 ~ ~ o ~oo o o o ~0000 O~ H Om © o o O~ H ',~ ~D C) o o 0 ~ ~ 0 ~r~ ~o o o o o o o o o o o~ o o o o o o o o o o ~o 0000 0000 0000 oo 0000 oo o~ 0 u,.4 ~ 0 oooo o o ,.~ r.¢.1 ¢¢1 ¢,.-} ~--I ~.~ ,r--I o o H ,.-] o o o . O~ (Jo ~:~ ~000 0 ~ O~ 0 i H 000 ~0~ ommm H~ 0 > OD © i O~ E~o 1:2> o o o oo o oo o oo ~-~ ooo o o o o o o o c~ o o o o o o o o0 co 00 ~0 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 o O~ · r~ · i ~ 00~ 000 0 ~ o o o o o . o o · . ~ o o ~ · , O [~ H ~ Oc~ Oo ~O © O n~ ~H O ~ O~ (ar,3 H H~ O H H H 0~ 0 on~ d ~o 0~ ~O '2::)0 i o o o o o o o'1 D.- D',. o o o o o o o o o o 00 0'~ o'~ o o I.fi} ~ IX) 120 0 u~ ~ 0 I-.t H 0 , 0 0 ~0 , 0 0 I.D 0 0 . 0 · 0 0'1 ,'-4 © · o o 0 0 H © · oreo · 0 , ~0 c~ o o o o 0 o~ oo~, Z O~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~0 H Or~ 0 ~o 0 O~ ~0 O~ O~ H ~ rJ · > oo~oo~oo~oo O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000 000 O0 O0 0 0000000000000 0000000000000 O0 000000000 ~oo~oo~o O0 O0 0 oo~~ 0 0 ~0~0~ 0 O0 f~ 0 0,} 0 OU~ u~O - 0 0 ,-10 0 ~888888© i E-,o > o o o o o o o o o o 00 ooo ooo o o o o o o o o o o oo~ ~oo o o o oo ~0 ~oo~ ooo ou~ o ~ o © o o o~ o o HO2 © o o E~ ~0 0 H 0 0 0 0 00000000 00000000 00000000 o~~~o o o 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 H H H HHHH HHH >>> 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 o 0 ~ 0 oUUU~g o~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~ 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 ~00~000~0~0000~~~ ~00~0~00~~0~0000 ~~0~~0~0~0~~0 0 O0 O0 ~ o~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 0 0 r JO ou~ o i © 0000000 H o~: E~o > o o o o 00 ~000 o o o o o o <22> (~ LD LD 00000 oo~ 00000 o o o o co ~0 oO o o 0000 o o ooooo o 00000 00000 o o oo o oo o 0 0 oo~ o o o o o o · o o o ~ · . o ~ ~ o 00 ~ . .~° E~ E~ o~0 o,}04o · . ~$° oo oooo ~0~. 00~0~ 0 000 · , · 0 ~mmo 0 ~ OH r~O Oo ~00000 rj O~ E~o > o o o o 0000 ?? ~ r~ co 12o 0000 o o ~ ~-I o o o o o ~E~ o 0 0 o o o o 0000~ 0 ~~0 o o o o o o o O40 00 00 · 0 ¢~ · . 00 . · O~ 0 ~ H ~ ~ OH 0~ 0 O~ m~ 0~ O~ 0 ~ ~ ~ OE~ O0 i O~ ~o U~. > oSS~S~Soooo 00000000000 HHH~H~HHHH ~oo~o~o~~~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOO oooSoosso OOO OO O ooSS °° ooSS ~oo o o o~ oo o o oo o o o o ~O OOOO O OOOOOOOOOO ~oo~oo o gg~o~oo~ o~ o~oo~o~oo O OO O OO HHHHHHHHHH~O H I-4 H O O 0 ~OO ~ o~o o o oooo oooo o~oo 0~00 ~OOOOOOOOOOO HHHHHHHHHHH f.,FJ i !134 f./"} H ¢.4 rJ'~ i !~4 ,f./'} o 0~: H H '~ > o 0 ~ °~ ~ u° O~ ~o H ~ rJ · o > o 03 o oh OC~ o H~O o ~o o u') o o o~ o i i.-i o r..9~ ~., o o~ o ~ o¢~ o - l:t:l i o cq <Dc>c> o o o o o o cq o o o o o oo o 0 0 o ~ o 0 ~r,j O~ i H~ H (.,) 0 .ff-] H ~,.-] H ¢4 0 0 ¢:::: H ~ O~ E~O > 00 CD 0 00 O0 OD ~° 0 0 O~ 0 000 O0 000000 000000 IlIllI 000000 000000 00 000 000 0 u.q ~ 0 00 00 ~0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ,< H 0 00 00 00 · 0 · · , ,~o o r.~ o HO D.-1 H 0 0,< E~o I-.-t ~ rj . o o o Ln Ln 00 o~oo~oo~oo~oo 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 O0 0 00000 0 O0 00000 0 0 O0 o o u'] o 0 ~ H 0 H 0 O0 oo~o 00000000 o o o~ o o ~ o'1 ¢,,1 o4 ["-,. o o LC'} LC} 00 0 q.4 ~ 0 cz:r..) o~ 0000 ~oooo~~ ~%~%0000 0 H i O~ > 6'404 0 0 c~ (D o o cq ooo oooooooo oooooooo 00000000 ooSS~ oo 00000000 o 0 o° o°O o o o o 00001 oo8 o o o o o . . 0 , , o88o o~r-4 o ~HHM 0000 tOO on~ o o o o i o o o H > 0000 o o Oh O~ ~o o o o o o o oo o ~ <2) co 0o co o o o o o o oo o ooooooooooo oo oo oo ooooooooooo 0 0 H H oo8 ooo · 0 0 o o o , , co ~ · o rj o o o oo · 0 0 o o o oo64o4 · 0 o~ , 0 ~oo~ O0 000 O0 00000000000 00000000000 ~o~o~oo 00000~0~ too O~ .~ ~-~-] H H HO i 0000000000 0 rj · > o o o o oooooooooo oS ~gg gg gg~gg~ o oo o o o o o oo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ooo~oooooo~oo~oo~oooooo~ooooooo~ SS~S~S~S~S~SS~S~mm ~ oo o ~ oo SS~SS oo oo ooo o o o oo oo ~S~SS~SS~SS~S~S~S~oo ooo oo oo ooooSSoo~SSoo~SS 0 0 o o · . · o oo ooooo ooooo ggoog ggoog oo ggoog oo HHHHH0 googgooggooggoogoogooggOOoo oo o o gg ggo o oo oo OO OO O OO O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO OO ~O OO O~ ~ OO ~O ~O~ O g°°gg°°g°°°g°°gg°°g°°~°2~°~~g~° OO OO OOO OO OO OO ~O ~ ~ o ~ o i i o~ o~ o o o o o o o co 00 o o o o oo o ooooo oo o ooooo 0 0 0 o lc} . o ¢~ o o o o o o · o o o o · · 0 o o oo ~o~ o 000060 ~0 000 o r.,~o 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~JO0 ~° 0 ~ 0,~ O~ i d 0 O~ rj · > 1:2> 000000000000000 0 O0 O0 O0 o ~ c~ o o o o o~ ~ ~0 co ~ t'~ o~ o~ o~ o oo 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000000 00000 ~~0~0.00~ ~o~o~o~~o 0000000~~000 0000000~~00~ O0 C~ 0 ~ ~000000000000000 E~ 0 E~ i O~ > o o o~ o o o o 0 0 U-}LC}LC} 0 0 0 · , · o o o o o · 0 o o · o o ~-~ c~ ~° r-t ~o o o o Z O~ ZZZ ~o~ Z r~o D Z 0,< H ~ rj . ~D 0 > 0 O0 O0 0000000 o~~~o o o~oo~o 0 O0 0 O0 ~~~o o o o o 120 o o o o co co ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 o oo o~ o ~ ~ 0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 oo o 000000 ~oo~oo ~0~0~0 oo~~ r.z.l r.z.1 o OC~ ~:~ R ~H 0 ,44 ~ 0 ITEM NO. st, DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW OF TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION FUND FOR SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE AND EAST GOBBI STREET SUMMARY: On May 16, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-47 (Attachment 1) which established a traffic signalization improvement fund for the intersection of South Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9543 (Attachment 2). This fund was established in order to finance the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of South Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street. The resolution provided that the fund was to be reviewed every five years after fees were collected and reviewed and reported on annually after the first five year period. The first deposit to the fund was on 04/30/96. This report is intended to constitute an annual report for the ninth fiscal year of the fund. The reserved funds in the signalization fund account (270.240.011) totaled $61,863.10 on 07/01/2003 at the beginning of the last fiscal year. During the fiscal year, there was $1,795.98 accrued interest. There was one new deposit of $17,141.00 from DANCO Builders. The fund balance was $80,800.08 on 6/30/2004 at the end of the 2003/2004 fiscal year. This Report was made available to the public at the planning counter at the Civic Center as of November 1, 2004. BACKGROUND: Traffic impacts at this intersection are recognized and staff anticipates constructing the necessary intersection improvements within the next two-four years. In addition to constructing a new intersection complete with signalization, improvements will also include (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept Report and Determine that South Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street Traffic Signalization Fund has been appropriately reviewed. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: N/A Tim Eriksen, Civil Engineer Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 1. Resolution 90-47 2. Code Section 9543, 3 Map of Remaining Parcels to be Developed Ca~-dace Horsley, City M~;;~ager cross walk striping and ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps. Staff estimates it will cost $284,746 (today's dollars) to complete the noted intersection improvements. Increases in construction costs have been calculated in accordance with Engineering News Record Cost Index procedures pursuant to City Resolution 90-47. The City currently has a fund balance . of $80,800.08 in the traffic signalization fund for this project, which is made up of fees collected to date plus interest. The improvement fee is calculated on the basis of land use zoning and the intensity of traffic generated by each type of land use. The fees are shown in the table below. The area prescribed for the collection of fees includes properties adjacent to Orchard Avenue, from Marlene Street to Kings Court, and along East Gobbi Street, from U.S. 101 to approximately 250 feet westerly of Orchard Avenue, as shown in Exhibit B to Resolution 90-47. Most ofthe affected parcels have been developed at this time, however eight undeveloped parcels remain (Attachment 3). As these parcels develop they will contribute approximately $47,503 (today's dollars). The fees by land use zone were established and continue to be as follows: PD (R-2) Planned Development $763/acre PD (R-3) Planned Development $858/acre CL Light Commercial $7,894/acre CN Neighborhood Commercial $7,170/acre Staff secured STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) funding in the amount of $131,000 for this project. These funds have been deferred for the second time bythe state. These fund will not be available until the Fiscal Year 2005-2006. A summary of funding sources and estimated additional funding required is as follows: ESTI MATED COST $284,746 FUND BALANCE $80,800 ANTICIPATED FEES $47,503 STIP AUTHORIZATION $131,000 CURRENT PROJECTED SHORTFALL ($25,443) It is expected that the shortfall will increase each year. As the estimated costs, Anticipated Fees and the Fund Balance are all tied to inflation and interest they will increase. The STIP authorization is a fixed amount and that will be the factor that causes the shortfall increase. Other sources such as gas tax, STPdl, and discretionary funds, as well as State or Federal grants, are potential funding sources to cover a shortfall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council accept and approve this annual report. Created by City of Ukiah C:~Projects\Public Works~PW 00-16 Gobb-Orchard traffic signal~Signalization Gobbi and Orchard\City Council Agenda October 2004.doc Last saved by TERIKSEN 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 9O-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE AND EAST GOBBI STREET TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION FEE WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ukiah has adopted Ordinance No. 882 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging off-site capital improvement fees within the City of Ukiah; and WHEREAS, a "Traffic Signalization Study-Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street" (hereinafter "Study") has examined the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in a study area identified in the Study along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by this new development. The Study sets forth the relationship between new development in this study area, the needed faci%ities, and the estimated costs of those improvements. The Study was prepared by the Public Works Department of the City of Ukiah, is dated April, 1990, and attached herein and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A". WHEREAS, the Study was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of this fee is to finance the Traffic Signalization of South Orchard and East Gobbi Street as described in the Study in order to reduce the impacts of increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic caused by new development within the Study area which is identified and described in the map of the study area, 1 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 ~0 ~3 24 ~5 ~6 City of Ukiah that: 1. Definitions: (a) "New development" shall mean construction of any new structures, such as, but not limited to, residential commercial or industrial structures. This shall not include additions or modifications to existing structures. (b) "Base' year" shall mean the first full y~ar following the adoption of this resolution. 2. An Orchard Avenue and East Gobbi Street Traffic Signalization Fee shall be charged upon and paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for all new development in the benefit area depicted and described on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B", except as otherwise specifically provided in Ukiah City Code Section 9543. The Community Development Department shall determine if the development lies within the benefit area, the type of development, and the corresponding fee to be charged in accordance with this resolution. 3. Fee. For new residential and commercial development, the base year fee per acre shall as follows: P.D. (R-2) Planned Development Residential Duplex (Medium High Density Residential) $763.00; P.D~ (R-3) Planned Development (High Density Residential) $858.00; C-I (Light-Commercial) $7,894; C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) $7,170.00. The fees established herein for the base year shall increase each year thereafter based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. 4. Use of Fee. The fee shall be used solely to pay (1) for the EXHIBIT "A" TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION STUDY - ORCHARD AVENUE/EAST GOBBI STREET General Area of Benefit subject to Development~Fee: Orchard Avenue, from Marlene Street to Kings Court and East Gobbi Street, from U.S.101 freeway to a point approximately 250 feet westerly of Orchard Avenue. See map attached. 23.97 Acres Description of Public Facility to be Constructed Install 8-phase traffic signal with electronic controller, traffic sensor loops, signing, striping and concrete handicap pedestrian ramp facilities. Cost of Improvements, (Estimated January 1990), Construction Cost $162,000 Engineering (10%) 16,200 Administration 4,000 (1) TOTAL AMOUNT $182,200' (2) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FEE BY LAND USE ZONE AS FOLLOWS: ZONING PD (R-2) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD (R-3) PLANNED D~VELOPMENT Cl LIGHT COMMERCIAL CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AMOUNT OF FEE/ACRE $ 763.00 858.00 7,894.00 7,170.00 (1) Estimated Administrative cost is intended to include all Staff costs such as initial Study, periodic review of fee, application of fee to specific parcels, and overhead costs. (2) Subject to annual adjustment based upon '*Engineering News Record" Construction Cost Index. For administrative efficiency the basis for apportioning costs in this Study Area is the relative size (acres) of parcel because traffic generally occurs in relation to zoning of parcel. 1990 VACANT PARCELS SOUTH ORCHARD AVENUE/EAST GOBBI STREET TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION STUDY AREA EST'D PARCEL OR PORTION FEE/ AREA/SIZE EST'D OF, A.P.# ZONE ACRE ACRES FEE (3) _ 003-582-04 C-N $7,170 0.28 $ 2,008. 179-050-29 C-N' 7,170 2.81 20,149 179-050-30 C-N ' 7,170 2.41 17,281 003-582-05,06 PD(C-1) 7,894 0.28 2,210 003-582-07 " PD(C-1) 7,894 0.35 2,763 180-030-23 PD(C-1) 7,894 0.29 2,289 003-582-08 PD(C-1) 7,894 O.18 1,421 179-050-25 C-I 7,894 0.60 4,736 179-050-27 C-1 7,894 2.03 16,025 179-050-28 C-1 7,894 2.03 16,025 003-582-09,10 PD(R-2) 763 0.24 183 003-582-11,12 PD(R-2) 763 0.24 183 003-582-13,14 PD(R-2) 763 0.24 183 003-582-15,16 PD(R-2) 763 0.35 267 003-582-17,18 PD(R-2) 763 0.47 359 180-030-11 (MHD) PD(R-2) 763 0.93 710 180-030-16 (MHD) PD(R-2) 763 0.86 656 180-030-25 (MHD) PD(R-2) 763 1.41 1,076 180-030-11 (HD) PD(R-3) 858 3.16 2,713 180-030-16 (HD) PD(R-3) 858 2.63 2,258 180-030-25 (HD) PD(R-3) 858 2.18 1,871 23.97 $95,366 (3) See Ordinance No. 882. This column represents the total amount of funds that the City expects to collect, over time, from this fee as applied to vacant parcels. R:PW9 9543' I:~STAI:II.IS! I M I?~NT O1; CAI'ITAI. ! M I'ROVIZM I~N'i' I;I:.I~S: J ~, 'T'X' ,~¢.,141~,14T' 9543: ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES: I'agc I A. Creation by Resolution: By resolution the City Council shall establish such capital improvement fees as it determines are necessary to contribute toward the financing of public facilities. Each such resolution shall: 1. Establish and describe the benefit and impact area within which the fee shall apply; 2. Set forth the specific amount of the fee; 3. List the specific public improvement or improvements to be financed; 4. Describe the estimated cost of these facilities, and associated costs such as necessary engineering services and administrative costs; 5. Describe the reasonable relationship between the fee and the types of new development to which it will apply; 6. Set fodh the time when the fee must be paid as follows: a. As to residential development that time shall not be sooner than the date of final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first. The City shall not furnish utilities to occupants of any such residential development prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall disconnect utilities furnished to a residential development if that development is occupied prior to final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In accordance with the §§2136 to 2137, the City shall revoke the business license issued pursuant to Division 2 of this Code to any person (as defined in §2100) engaged in a business (as defined in §2101 ), if such person participates as seller, broker or otherwise in the sale of a residential development to an occupant of that development before final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The City shall not issue a new business license to a person whose license is revoked as provided herein for a period of two (2) years. b. As to all other development that time shall be at the time a building permit is issued. c. No certificate of occupancy or building permit, as appropriate, shall issue until the required fees are paid. "Building permit," "final inspections," and "certificate of occupancy," as used in this Section, have the same meaning as described in Sections 301,305, and 307 of the Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1985 Edition; 7. Set forth the method for reviewing or modifying the fee or its use. B. Procedure: The City Council shall adopt each resolution according to the following procedure: 1. The resolution shall be adopted at a public hearing at which any person may appear in person or in writing. 2. A fee study estat)lishing tt~e reasonat)lo rolationst~ip between tile tee and oact~ parcel of properly to whict~ it will apply shall t)e available for put)Ifc inspection for at least ten (10) days prior to tile hearing. 3. Notice of tile hearing sl~all be published in a newspaper of general circulation within tile City ten (10) days prior to tho hearing. Tho notice shall describe the public facilities to be financed witt~ tho fee, tile are withir~ wt~ict~ tt~o 1oo will al)iffY, tho amou~t of tho leo, a~d tho limes and location wt~ore tile too study is availat)lo for l)ublic mst)ection. (Ord. 882, §2, adopted 1988) I~tll'~://(~(~. I 13.195.23.1/t 'Alt Iki;dd ! I {){)(~()()2()()()()()2{){)t).ht ~} 12/9/2t), Attachment 3 Traffic Signalization Study Orchard Ave./East Gobbi St. z 0 43O 86O Legend ~ UndeveloPed Parcels ~ Traffic Signal Fund Parcels IParcels I Feet 1,720 ITEM NO. .sc DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM MARK NANCE AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from Mark Nance was received by the City of Ukiah on October 28, 2004 and alleges damages due to a power surge at 309 S. Spring on October 19, 2004. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claim as stated and refer it to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION' Reject Claim For Damages Received From Mark Nance And Refer It To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Claimant Michael F. Harris, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Mark Nance, pages 1-3. APPROVED' mfh:asrcc04 1103CLAIM Candace Horsley, City Man~l~er File With: City Clerk's Office City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP Aflach nt FOR ONEY OR THE ........ lit UKIAh A claim must be presented, as prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or a person acting on his/her behalf and shall show the following: If additional space is needed to provide your information, please attach sheets, identifying the paragraph(s) being answered. 1. Name and address of the Claimant! Name of Claimant: Mark Nance, Address' 309 S. Spring St. Ukiah, CA 95482 . Address to which the person presenting 'the claim desires notices to be sent: Name of Addressee: Nark Nance Telephone: (707) 463-3555 Address: 309 S. Spring St. Uk~b: CA 95482 The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. · Date of Occurrence: 10-19-04 Time of Occurrence: 3:30 AH Location: 309 S. Spring St., Ukiah, CA 95482 Circumstances giving rise to this claim: Where the power comes .into to hodse the connections where poorly made, as a result it caused a power surge which zapped my Telephone, Television, Typewriter, & SateliteBox. General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim. ~Power surge saused the Television: _Type_writer, Telephone: and Satelite Box to fry_. . The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. Ur~ow-n Page I of 3 If amount claimed totals less than $10,000' The amount claimed, if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. Amount Claimed and basis for computation: Claim of $536.00 for New ~, Phone, Satlite ~zpewriter. And Disposal. If amount claimed exceeds $10,000: If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no'dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. A limited civil case is one where the recovery sought, exclusive of attorney fees, interest and court costs does not exceed $25,000. An unlimited civil case is one in which the recovery sought is more than $25,000. (See CCP § 86.) ~-~ Limited Civil Case ~ Unlimited Civil Case IYou are required to provide the information requested above in order to comply with Government Code §910. Claimant(s) Social Security Number(s)' (optional) . Claimant(s) Date(s) of Birth' 8/20/55 Name, address and telephone number of any witnesses to the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted: The Ukiah Fire Department was on sceen. 10. If the claim involves medical treatment for a claimed injury, please provide the name, address and telephone number of any doctors or hospitals providing treatment: N/A 11. If applicable, please attach any medical bills or reports or similar documents supporting your claim. If the claim relates to an automobile accident: Claimant(s) Auto Ins. Co.: N/A 'Telephone: Address: Insurance Policy No.: Insurance BrokedAgent: Telephone: Address: Claimant's Veh. Lic. No.: Vehicle Make/Year: Claimant's Drivers Lic. No.: Expiration: If appficable, please attach any repair bills, estimates or similar documents supporting your claim. Page 2 of 3 READ CAREFULLY For all accident claims, place on the following diagram the name of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances.to street corners. If City of Ukiah vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of City of Ukiah vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle when you first saw City of Ukiah vehicle; location of City of Ukiah vehicle at time of accident by "A-l" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-I" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. CURB SIDEWALK PARKWAY SIDEWALK '/ CURB Warning: Presentation of a false claim is a felony (Penal Code §72). Pursuant to California Civil Prodecures §1038, the City/Agency may seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed which is later determined not to have been brought in good faith and With reasonable cause. Date: Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO. 5d DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT- DEPARTMENT HEAD UNIT The City Manager and representatives of the Department Head Unit have met to discuss negotiation items for the Unit's new contract. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding has been submitted for Council's review under separate cover for closed session, if necessary, and has previously been discussed in closed session with the City's Negotiator (City Manager). Staff recommends approval of the Department Head Unit Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and adoption of the Resolution approving the MOU for the period of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution approving Memorandum Of Understanding for the Department Head Unit, which also applies to the City Manager. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: , Do not adopt resolution. Refer to Staff for amendments. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. N/A Department Head Bargaining Unit Melody Harris, Personnel Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager Resolution for Adoption APPROVED: 3:MOU~SRMOU Candace Horsley, C~ Manager ATTACHMENT ~_~. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND THE MANAGEMENT UNIT WHEREAS, the Employee/Employer Relations Officer has met and conferred in good faith with representatives of the Management Unit; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding for the term of October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004 has been arrived at; and WHEREAS, said Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City Council for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Memorandum of Understanding is hereby adopted and the Employee/Employer Relations Officer is authorized to enter into this Agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2004 - Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD UNIT WHEREAS, the Employee/Employer Relations Officer has met and conferred in good faith with representatives of the Department Head Unit; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been approved by the Department Head Unit; and WHEREAS, said Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City Council for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Memorandum of Understanding for the Department Head Unit is hereby adopted and the Employee/Employer Relations Officer is authorized to enter into this Agreement for the term of October 1,2004 - September 30, 2005. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Eric Larson, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 3:PER/RES.MOU Resolution No. 2004 - Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. .Se DATE:November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING RECORDS DESTRUCTION The City Manager's department has reviewed a Records Destruction Notice and identified certain records boxes to be destroyed. Three boxes containing City Council Agenda Packets are currently being scanned into the Laser Fiche system and will not be destroyed until that process is complete. The City's Records Retention Schedule was adopted by City Council in 1999. The City Attorney has reviewed the Records Destruction Notices for each archival box and has approved those boxes designated for destruction. Funds have been allocated in the City Clerk's budget for shredding of documents. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Destruction of Certain Records ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~c,~Z/z:~_-~..~., ~ ~ Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney 1. Resolution with attachment authorizing the destruction of certain records APPROVED: ~~i'~ .. ~Z~.~.~-~ ~ Candace Hors'l~y, City IvTan"~ger ASR: Records Destruction 2004 City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS WHEREAS, the City Clerk's Department has reviewed and approved the list of records provided by the City Manager's Department that are ready for destruction; and WHEREAS, the attached list of City records represents records which are no longer necessary and may at this time be destroyed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council hereby approves the destruction of certain records, contained in Exhibit A of this Resolution, and authorizes the City Clerk to destroy the records. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Eric Larson, Mayor Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk Resolution 2005- Page 1 of 1 Dat6: August 17, 2004 Department: City Manager, Records Coordinator: Marie Uivila, Deputy.City Clerk Current retention schedules show that the records listed are now ready for destruction. Instructions: 1. Review this listing. 2. Obtain Department Head's Signature. 3. Return this notice, signed, no later than Sept. 16, 2004 to City Clerk. Thank you for your cooperation in keeping our records management system working smoothly and legally. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk LOCATION BOX RECORD TITLE DATES RETENTION COMMENTS DATES 151 2036 Various- 101-01,102-05, 801-01, 1989-1998 2003 ,,, 1201-01, 1203-01 ' 766 2036 Various-101-01, 102-05 1989-1998 2003 546 1748 City Council Agenda Packets ' 6/16/93. 2002 10/6/93 565 1738 Ci~ Council Agenda Packets 10/20/93- 2001 5/4/94 ~ ,~~~~, 594 1747 City Council Agenda Packets 11~21/94- 2000 9120195, 745 2015 Various Confidential 'Files 1984-1990 2000 754 2024 Various Confidential Files 1982-1992 1997 Signatures Authorizi'ng Destruction Departmenl~~,d ~ Date:// -/0 -~' t./~, . City Clerk Date:////0//? ¢ Date:., Destroyed By Date: Reports: Destroy-City Manager 2004 Z :';':'.:.~ ; ~.'?'.-:, · iL] · ~? .. ' ,:~ ... Imm o LLi I,J= Z 0 LLI U.. Z o LLI LL LL Z 0 0 ~D I I I I I AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO 5f DATE: November 17, 2004 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF INFILTRATION AND INTRUSION (l&l) VIDEO INSPECTION AND DATA MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT FROM CUES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,000 Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is staff's request to approve the purchase of video inspection and data management equipment. This equipment will be used to video inspect the public sewer lines and commence a data acquisition infiltration & intrusion (l&l) program as outlined and required in the City's upcoming National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. BACKGROUND A successful wastewater system I&l program can help to reduce the amount of rainwater and groundwater that penetrates the wastewater lines. Penetration is from many areas including manholes, cracks, and breaks in the public lines. Before any repair is planned it is of utmost importance to know exactly where I&l problems are located. Once located, a repair plan can take many forms since it must be tied to the severity or criticality of the problem and the annual budget. Priorities involving I&l maintenance can then be set and an appropriate program developed to treat the problem areas. Regardless of the program, knowing the exact location of line failures, obstructions, depressions, and leaks is a primary piece of information. The City staff is currently developing a multi-step program in order to document the entire underground wastewater infrastructure. This will include videoing all of the lines, prioritizing the findings, and establishing a multi-year asset management/repair program to alleviate a high percentage of I&l problems. Many cities have undertaken a "hit and miss" type of I&l reduction campaign costing millions of dollars without any direct results. For the most part, these programs were defined without hard factual evidence but rather with personnel inspections reported during regularly (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Purchase ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct Staff as to Alternatives Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek & Jerry Gall (Supervisor Wastewater Treatment Plant) Candace Horsley, City Manager Pictures of the Mobile Van and Equipment. Approved. Candace Horsley, C~t~Manager APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF INFILTRATION AND INTRUSION (l&l) VIDEO INSPECTION AND DATA MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT FROM CUES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,000 November 17, 2004 Page 2 scheduled manhole cleaning. At best, these inspections are able to predict what might be occurring without knowing the exact problem and location. This is similar to the way inspections are presently carried out in the City. This type of information makes it impossible to structure an appropriate I&l reduction program. The purchase of video inspection and associated data management equipment is an initial all important first step to any successful I&l reduction program. Shortly, the City will be required to have an appropriate I&l data and asset management system program in place along with short and long range reduction plans. This will now be a required and on-going part of the City's wastewater discharge permit (NPDES). Informal bids were requested from a number of companies for video inspection and data management equipment. Only two bids were received. One of the respondents, Cues, Inc. recently had a complete system in a mobile van returned. This is a one of a kind opportunity for the City and offers a complete package ready to go for $72,000. Similar equipment, including a new mobile van for this type setup, would be well over $150,000. Staff reviewed the maintenance history of the used mobile van and is pleased with the excellent condition. Brand new equipment will replace the returned inspection and data management system housed in the mobile van (pictures attached). A similar used mobile van package was not available from the other vendor. In addition, City staff received estimates for third party contract video inspection services ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 per city block; depending on the size and length of the infrastructure being inspected. The estimates did not include data management. After reviewing the contract estimates and taking into account the size of the underground wastewater infrastructure, it became apparent it was less costly owning and maintaining City equipment and having the flexibility to inspect on a formal and as-needed basis. By acquiring the equipment, City staff could perform all of the required video inspections in less than two years at a considerable savings. Also, owning the equipment will offer a strong advantage to re-inspect high and mid-priority lines on a more frequent basis, inspect repairs, inspect blocked areas, and precisely capture the entire sewer system details in a database as required by the NPDES permit. This system has the advantage to connect directly to a GPS mapping system, currently used in the City by the Streets Department. City staff did discuss returned equipment with other manufacturers but only one offered a bid for a complete system including a returned mobile van. BID INFORMATION Cues, Inc.- $72,000 (Includes 1991 Van w/24,000 miles, extra video cable, Digital CD format, and field service) Aries- $75,000 (Does not include mobile van, VHS format) REQUEST Because of this unique opportunity, staff recommends purchase of I&l video inspection and data management equipment and associated mobile van from Cues, Inc. for $72,000. This expense was budgeted in the 2004/2005 Fiscal Year in account number 612.3510.250.000. Affachment # · · AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 5§ DATE' November 17, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR VARIOUS POLE AND PAD MOUNT TRANSFORMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,130.17 TO WESCO The formal bid process was followed in distributing a Request for Quotation (R.F.Q.) for four different size transformers. Bids were opened by the City Clerk on November 4, at 2:00 p.m. The bidders were: , 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WESCO - ABB WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- ERMCO WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- PAUWELS WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- COOPER G.E. SUPPLY COMPANY- GE PROLEC WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.- HOWARD INDUSTRIES Bids were evaluated on price, delivery time, load losses, size, availability of circuit protection and the requirement of two switches for a Ioopfeed transformer. The bids are total cost, including tax and shipping. Based on staff's evaluation, the lowest compliant bidder for each unit is as summarized in the attached table. Wesco was the lowest bidder in each category. The transformers will be placed in warehouse stock and will be charged out on a project-by-project basis. These expenses have been budgeted in the 2004/05 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. Sufficient funds are available for this expenditure. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Award bids for one 10 KVA, thirteen 37.5 KVA, and two 100 KVA pole mount transformers and three 225 KVA pad mount transformers totaling $34,130.17 to Wesco. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' Reject all bids and direct staff to re-advertise and re-solicit bids Citizen Advised' N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electric Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with- Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments' Bid Tabulation Candace Horsley, City'~anager Attachment ,~ I Iii AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 5h DATE: November 17, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF SOLE SOURCE BID FOR POLICE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED $19,026 AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT For the past several years the Ukiah Police Department (UPD) has been awarded Federal grant funds, each November, which were designated to make officers more effective within their community. Since 2002 the department has used this funding for an ongoing Officer Transcription Program. This program has proven to be highly effective in reducing officer report preparation time and increase officer availability. This year, this Federal funding program has been reduced and the City of Ukiah no longer qualifies for this funding. A balance of $19,026 currently exists within this fund which will allow this program to continue through August 2005 with our current transcription vendor. Since 1997, Jennie Martin-Gall ("Transpositions") has been providing transcription services for the Ukiah Police Department. During this time period, Transpositions has developed a vast number of capabilities to meet the required specifications by the department from an outside vendor: 1. Clearance to transcribe confidential criminal and internal investigations from the Ukiah Police Department, District Attorney's Office, Public Defenders Office, and the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office. 2. Software development of UPD report formats. 3. Development of computer resources to connect and work within the Ukiah Police Department's computer network using secure communications. 4. Advanced training in Criminal Investigation formats and reporting standards. 5. Completed training in the use and maintenance of the Department's computerized records management systems. 6. Establishment of the Ukiah Police Department's arrested person database and maintenance of the system. 7. Maintenance of a current Professional Liability Occurrence Insurance Policy. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize Award Of Sole Source Contract, Not To Exceed $19,026, to Transpositions For Police Department Transcription Services and approve amendment to 2004-05 budget increasing expenditures in account 207.2001.250.000 by $19,026. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Reject proposal and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Police Department Prepared by: Chris Dewey, Administrative Captain Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and John Williams, Police Chief Attachments: Budget amendment worksheet, page 1. APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Ci[~ Manager AWARD OF SOLE SOURCE BID FOR POLICE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED $19,026 AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT November 17, 2004 Page 2 The Police Department has negotiated a monthly compensation of $1,666.66 (average hourly rate of $20.83, with a maximum of 20 hours per week) for this service with Transpositions. Transcription services within our area currently range from $27.00 per hour and above, with transcriptionists charging a "by word or by line" fee. Due to Transpositions unique qualifications and compliance with the required specifications of the department, and the savings negotiated, it is recommended that the City Council award sole source contract to Transpositions, for expanded dictation services. Though funds are available for these services in the fund balance of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund, Fund 207, the expenditure was only budgeted through October. Thus a budget amendment is necessary to allocate funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. The amendment will increase account 207.2001.250.000 by $19,026. I-Z Q.. x z Z 0 Attachment # AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO: DATE: November 17, 2004 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CITY OF UKIAH'S BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE TO NCPA AND ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR WAPA BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THESE DOCUMENTS As voted upon at an earlier Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Commission meeting and discussed prior with Council and NCPA Commissioner Roy Smith, the City of Ukiah along with the other members of NCPA, unanimously agreed to have Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) assign the City's base resource percentage to NCPA. This assignment will create a power resource portfolio for the benefit of qualified members starting January 1, 2005. The City will benefit by avoiding costs associated with power delivery that would not occur if scheduled separately for the City. Savings for this assignment will be allocated as a credit to the City based on current contract proportions. Staff recommends approving the attached Resolution and authorizing the City Manager to execute the documents. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Approving Request For Assignment Of City Of Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage To NCPA And Assignment Administration Agreement For WAPA Base Resource Percentage And Authorization For City Manager To Execute These Documents. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide other direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek & Roy Smith, Councilmember Candace Horsley, City Manager Resolution for Adoption. Approved: Candace Horsley, Ci~ Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2005- Affochmenf ~ , , [ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CITY OF UKIAH'S BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE TO NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AND ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THESE DOCUMENTS WHEREAS: 1. The City of Ukiah has entered into Contract 00-SNR-00355, dated November 17, 2000, with the Western Area Power Administration (Western), which provides Ukiah with a percentage of Western's Base Resource power beginning January 2005; and 2. The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers agency, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and 3. The City as a member of NCPA desires to have Western assign Ukiah's Base Resource percentage under Contract 00-SNR-00777 to NCPA so that NCPA may create a power resource portfolio for the mutual benefit of qualified NCPA members beginning January 1, 20051acks the personnel and resources to negotiate, purchase and administer contracts for this replacement electricity; and 4. NCPA has agreed to accept assignment of the City of Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage for the benefit of the City of Ukiah according to the terms of an Assignment Administration Agreement; and 5. It is intended that the City of Ukiah will receive an economic benefit and avoid certain costs by assigning its Western Area Power Administration Base Resource Percentage to NCPA with such benefit being greater than or equal to the benefit that Ukiah would have derived had its Base Resource Energy been scheduled solely for use on its won load. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ukiah that: The Assignment Administration Agreement for Western Area Power Administration Base Resource Percentage between Northern California Power Agency and City of Ukiah and Request for Assignment of City of Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage to Northern California Power Agency, Assignment 04-SNT-00777 attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively are approved and the City Manger is authorized to sign them on behalf of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED on November 17, 2004, by the following roll call vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2005- Page 1 of 1 ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE between NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY and Assignor: ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Section 10: Section 11:, Section 12: Section 13: Section 14: Section 15: Section 16: Section 17: Section 18: Section 19: Section 20: Section 21: Section 22: Section 23: Section 24: Section 25: TABLE OF CONTENTS Recitals Definitions. NCPA Duties Assignor Duties Allocations Resource Planning Resource Sale and Purchase O&M Funding and Restoration Central Dispatch and Scheduling Services Accounting Metering Billing Administrative Cost Allocation Other Agreements Western Systems Coe.~dinating Council Term of Agreement Notices Waiver of Defaults Uncontrollable Forces Liability Reports and Records Assignment of Agreement Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration Amendments Severability Governing Law. ASSIGNMENT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT This Assignment Administration Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement", is made and entered into by and between the ¢..~-t~' o~ U,~4t~ and the Northern California Power Agency. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Northern California Power Agency, hereinafter referred to as "NCPA", has heretofore been duly established as a public agency pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of th~ Governm'ent Code of the State of California and, among other things, is authorized to acquire, construct, finance, and operate buildings, works, facilities and improvements for the generation and transmission of electric capacity and energy for resale; and WHEREAS,~¢ty oF L~,~,, hereinafter referred to as "Assignor" is a member in good standing of the Northern California Power Agency; and WHEREAS, as a member of NCPA...Assignor entered into Contract I~ -SNR-00-/'/'7 (Assignment Contract), dated ,2004, whereby Assignor assigned its Base Resource Percentage under this contract to NCPA in order for NCPA to create a.power resource portfolio for the mutual benefit of participating NCPA members beginning January 1,2005. WHEREAS, NCPA has agreed to accept assignment of Assignor's Base Resource Percentage, and will administer the Assignment Contract for the benefit of Assignor according to the terms of this Assignment Administration Agreement; and WHEREAS, it is intended that the Assignor will receive an economic benefit from assigning its Western Area Power Administration Base Resource Percentage to NCPA with such benefit being greater than or equal to the benefit that Assignor would have derived had Assignor's Base Resource Energy been scheduled solely for use on its own load; and WHEREAS, NCPA anticipates taking assignment of additional Western Area Power Administration Base Resource Percentages from other Assignors to likewise provide economic benefits from joint assignment administration greater than or equal to those benefits that individual Assignors would have derived had their Base Resource Energy been scheduled solely for their own uses; and WHEREAS, NCPA members and other qualified entities assigning their respective Base Resource Percentages to NCPA expect to avoid certain costs associated with Base Resource Energy delivery that would otherwise accrue if each AssignoYs Base Resource Energy been scheduled separately and solely for each Assignor's own load; and WHEREAS, NCPA seeks to equitably allocate a portion of the common savings to Assignor by the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, it is agreed hereby as follows: SECTION 1 Definitions Whenever used in this Agreement, in either the singular or plural, the following terms shall have the following respective meanings: 1.1 Administrative Costs are any general or administrative costs NCPA incurs while performing its duties under this agreement, including but not limited 2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 to consulting fees, legal .fees, general overhead, and expenses related thereto. Agreement is this contract and attached Schedule(s). Assignment Contract is the contract between NCPA and the Assignor and approved by the Western Area Power Administration, providing for the assignment of Assignor's Base Resource Percentage to NCPA. Assignor is a party to an Assignment Contract assigning its Base Resource Percentage to NCPA. Assignor is also a signatory to this Assignment Administration Agreement with NCPA. Base Resource Percentaqe is Assignor's percentage share of Western Area Power Ad'm~n~strat~on Base Resource under its Base Resource Contract ~-SNR-~'555 prior to assigning the Base Resource Percentage to NCPA. Base Resource Percentage may be modified by Western from time to time as contemplated in Base Resource Contract 03-SNR-00555 Base Resource Energy is the energy and associated ancillary services made available from the Western Area Power Administration on a daily basis as a result of Assignor's Base Resource Percentage. Base Resource Energy also refers tO associated electrical capacity' made available from the W estern_,A_r, ea Power Administration on a daily, monthly or annual basis as a result of Assignor's Base Resource Percentage. SECTION 2 NCPA Duties and Authorities 2.1 The NCPA Commission, acting after obtaining the unanimous affirmative vote of those Commissioners representing each and every Assignor may: (a) Act on behalf of NCPA in carrying out any action properly taken pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The Commission, or its designee, shall have the authority on behalf of all NCPA to execute any contract, lease or other instrument which has been properly authorized pursuant to this Agreement including: documents supplementing this Agreement, 2.2 contracts with Non-Parties, contracts relating the Base Resource such as physical hydro production hedging contracts for interested Assignors and related items; (b) Establish standards, in addition to the authority provided in other sections of this Agreement, with respect to any aspect of arrangements between NCPA and the Assignors, which it determines may adversely affect the administration of the Base Resource Percentage Assignment, and to review such arrangements to determine compliance with such standards; (c) In addition, the Commission shall have such further powers and duties as are conferred or imposed upon it by other sections of this Agreement. The General Manager'and the N'CPA staff shall have the duties and authorities as necessary to provide for the day-to-day administration of this Agreement, which include but are not limited to actions to: (a) Carry out directions of the Commission with respect to matters related to this Agreement; (b) Coordinate interchange accounting and maintain records pertaining to the administration Of the Base Resource Percentage assignments, including d~termination of the volume of power delivered to each Assigpor for each calendar month; (c) Prepare and submit a proposed budget for assignment-related expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year to appropriate committees and the Commission, on such schedule as established by the Commission or consistent with the NCPA annual budget process; (d) Fumish such information and reports as are required to keep the Assignor informed of the outlook for, the functioning of, and results achieved with regard to the assignments of Base Resource Percentages; (e) Implement operating principles, practices and procedures as they relate to the economy of operation of the Base Resource Percentage assignments; 4 2.3 (f) Calculate costs for the Base Resource Percentage Assignment transactions among the Assignors; (g) Develop a billing system for the Base Resource Percentage Assignment for transactions pursuant to this Agreement, including criteria, rules, and standards thereto; (h) Issue an invoice to Assignor for Base Resource Percentage Assignment related costs; (i) Assist Assignor in making sales and purchases of generation and transmission capacity related to their assignment of the Base Resource Percentage; (j) Initiate and r~ake long ~nd short-range planning studies with respect to the Westem Area Power Administration Base Resource Percentage. These studies shall be updated annually or at such other times as the Commission may direct; (k) Develop any needed generation and transmission resource plans related to the Base Resource Percentage assignments in consultation with Assignor's staff; The General Manager and the NCPA s~aff shall act on behalf of Assignor, as directed in writing by Assignor, aqd in accordance with the Assignor's power purchasing statutes, regulations, rules, ordinances, and charter, as they apply, to subscribe to additional Westem products other than Base Resource, that Western chooses to market in proportion to each of its customers' Base Resource Percentage. SECTION 3 Assi_clnor Duties 3.1 Assignor shall cooperate with NCPA in providing its relevant load and resource data to NCPA in a timely fashion to insure that NCPA can maximize the value of the assigned Base Resource Percentage. 5 3.2 3.3 Assignor shall also indemnify NCPA in regard to assignment administration services provided by NCPA under this Agreement. Assignor shall pay NCPA for ali costs and charges incurred under this Agreement in accordance with Section 11. SECTION 4 Allocations 4.1. 4.2. Western Allocations Excluded from this Aqreement 4.1.1. Ali benefits, costs, and energy schedules associated with the CVP Corporation's Erfergy Exci~ange Arrangements for Project Use and First Preference Support program shall not be subject to this Agreement. This exclusion applies to all Bank Energy and Bank Return Energy schedules allocated by the CVP Corporation. 4.1.2. Western allocations that are not assigned to NCPA will not be subject to this Agreement and will be scheduled only for the benefit of the NCPA member receiving the allocation. ' 4.1.3 An NCPA member who does not assign its Base Resource Percentage to NCPA shall not be subject to this Agreement. Determination of Benefits In order to determine the benefits of assigning each member's Base Resource Percentage to NCPA for joint administration, NCPA staff will first estimate the value of the Base Resource Percentage as if no assignments had been executed, then compare this value with the value obtained through NCPA's joint administration of all assigned Base Resource Percentages. The computational algorithm for this comparison is contained in Schedule A to this Agreement; however, such algorithm, as it may be refined from time to time by the NCPA Commission, shall be consistent with the following policy goals agreed to by each Assignor, namely: (i) Western Base Resource Energy shall be fully utilized to the maximum extent possible; (ii) subject to (i) above, Western Base Resource Energy shall be scheduled during those time periods that maximize its 4.3 value; and (iii) consistent with scheduling Western Base Resource Energy to maximize its overall net value, NCPA will also seek to reasonably minimize associated transmission-related and other applicable costs. NCPA staff shall monitor the results of the algorithm contained in Schedule A and recommend corrective action to be taken if and when the application of this procedure results in allocations of benefits and costs to Assignor inconsistent with the policy goals and allocation parameters described in this section 4. Allocation of Benefits 4.3.1 4.3.1.1 4.3.2 For each monthly accounting period, all benefits attained through NCPA's administration of assigned Base Resource Percentages shall be allocated / ~ to Assignor proportionately to (i) the number of days that its Assignment ' Administration Agreement is in force that month, i.e., the fraction of the month Agreement is in force, and (ii) the amount of Base Resource Energy attributed to Assignor hereunder. One-half of any benefits shall be allocated to that group of Assignors providing Base Resource Energy in excess of their own load (Group E), and the remaining one-half of benefits shall be allocated to that group of Assignors whose load exceeds the Base Resource Energy their-have assigned (Group S). Each individual Assignor within either Group E or Group S shall receive a share of the group's benefit proportional to its contribution to the grOup's excess energy or excess load respectively. SECTION 5 Resource Planning 5.1 NCPA 'staff, in consultation with Assignor's staff, shall perform necessary forecasts, studies and resource planning related to maximizing the overall value of the integrated Base Resource Percentage assignments. NCPA Staff shall perform member-specific forecasts, studies and resource plans for the benefit of the individual Assignor so requesting only upon receiving a detailed written request from Assignor particularly describing the task requested to be performed as part of a duly authorized Member Services Agreement between the individual Assignor and NCPA. SECTION 6 Resource Sale and Purchase 6.1 6.2 7.1 Sales and Transfers to Non-Parties. Sales or transfers of Base Resource Energy to entities not assigning a Base Resource Percentage to NCPA under / t the authorization of the Western Area Power Administration are strictly prohibited without the express written consent of the Western Area Power Administration. Penalties. Any Penalties incurred for violation of section 6.1 shall be solely responsibility of the Assignor found to be in noncompliance with the above section. SECTION 7 ! O&M Funding and Restoration NCPA shall pass through to Assignor on an as-billed basis any bills and credits related to Western Area Power Administration O&M Funding and Central Valley Project Improvement Act Restoration Funding as part of its normal billing procedure described in Section 11 below. SECTION 8 Central Dispatch and Scheduling Services 8.1 Central Dispatch. Each Assignor shall, to the fullest extent practicable, subject its Base Resource Percentage to the central dispatch of the Northern California Power Agency. The objectives of the Pool central dispatch with respect to the Base Resource Percentage shall be as follows: 8 8.2 (a) to supply the capacity, and energy requirements of the combined Assignors at the lowest practicable cost; (b) to accomplish the requirements of (a), above, in a reliable and safe manner. Base Resource Scheduling. NCPA and Assignor shall cooperate to meet each applicable control area's scheduling timelines and protocols to maximize the value of the assigned Base Resource Percentages, and correspondingly minimize related transmission costs. SECTION 9 Accountinq 9.1 Records and Accounts. NCPA shall keep accurate records and accounts related to the Base Resource Percentage assignment, and for each identifiable service that it supplies to Assignor through this Agreement or through any related agreement which may be entered into between NCPA and Assignor. Records and accounts shall be kept in general accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees Subject to the Provisions of the Federal Power Act (see .-.t,8. CFR 101), as prescribed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and amended from time to time. Such records and accounts shall be made available to Assignor for inspection 'at any reasonable time. All records are subject to audit at the written request of Assignor provided that such audits shall be conducted at the expense of the Assignor(s) requesting them. SECTION 10 Metering 10.1 Each Assignor's duties with respect to metering under this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with protocols and standards of its respective control area. Differences in control area standards with respect to metering, if any, shall be resolved initially though internal discussions between the Assignors; and if the Assignors are unable to reach an agreement in this regard, then the matter shall be resolved through the dispute resolution procedures contained in Section 22 below. SECTION 11 Billin_~ 11.1 Applicability. Each month NCPA shall invoice Assignor in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Invoices amounts for Base Resource related costs will initially be determined according to Assignor's actual Base Resource Percentage, subject to the true-up procedure described below. Bills from NCPA to Assignor shall be rendered and collected by NCPA pursuant to requirements and procedures provided in this Agreement as follows. Amounts shown on invoice are due and payable thirty (30) days after the date of'the billing statement, except that any invoice coming due on a Friday, holiday, or weekend shall be adjusted by NCPA to come due on the closest following workday, as applicable. Assignor shall timely pay to ~CPA all amounts of money shown on an NPCA invoice or billing stateme~t..completely, without setoff, for any service, product, electrical capacity or energy, any Base Resource Energy, contracts related to the Base Resource, Administrative Costs, Western Area Power' Administration O&M Funding and Central Valley Project Improvement Act Restoration Funding, any consulting or legal fee or expense associated with this Agreement, and any other cost, liability, or expense incurred by NCPA pursuant to this Agreement. Any amount due and payable but not paid by the Assignor within thirty (30) days following the date of the invoice shall bear interest at the per annum prime rate (or reference rate) of the Bank of America NT & SA then in effect, plus two (2) percent per annum computed on a daily basis until paid. NCPA shall mail all invoices within 24 hours of the invoice date thereon. NCPA will alert Assignor's designated representative via telephone of any payment not received within 36 hours after the due date. The postmark date on the envelope containing payment by check shall be used to determine timeliness of payment, except that payments received later than seven (7) days after the due date shall be declared late without regard to postmark date. Preferred Payment Method Payment via wire transfer is the preferred method of making payments to NCPA. For wire transfers, the transaction date shall be used to determine the timeliness of payments. " ' NCPA Credit Memoranda issued to any Assignor do not bear interest during the period such credits remain outstanding but unapplied. It is each Assignor's responsibility to apply the credits to subsequent NCPA billings on a timely basis. A. Disputes. If An Assignor does not dispute the correctness of any billing statement in writing, within the time provided, the billing statement shall be deemed to be correct. If Assignor disputes the correctness of any billing statement by NCPA, it shall pay the amount claimed when due. If the bill is determined to be incorrect, NCPA will issue a corrected bill and refund any amount which may be due Assignor (including any interest paid by Assignor). If NCPA and Assignor fail to agree on the correctness of a bill within thirty (30) days after the Assignor has submitted a written request for explanation, the General Manager shall promptly submit the dispute to the NCPA Commission for resolution. If the Commission and Assignor fail to agree on the correctness of a bill within thirty (30) days, the dispute shall then be resolved under the procedures set forth in Section 22 of this Agreement. B, Invoices and Invoice True-Up NCPA invoices for all costs will be adjusted or trued-up as provided below. True-up of invoices will be performed throughout the year, as practicable; but, not less than quarterly. At the end of each fiscal year, as soon as the annual audit is complete and actual data is available, NCPA shall true-up all invoices based on actual cost data and actual billing determinants. True-up amounts will be invoiced or credited to the Assignor, as applicable. True-up amounts for Base Resource related costs will be based upon an adjusted Base Resource Percentage attributable to Assignor in accordance with Schedule A. Credit amounts will be deposited in the appropriate member's individual account in the General Operating Reserve. 11.2 11.3 11.4 Appeals. In the event of extenuating circumstances, should Assignor make a late payment including interest, it may then make a written appeal to the Commission for relief from such interest for reasonable cause. Audit Riqhts. Assignor shall have the' right to audit any data created or maintained by NCPA pursuant to.,.tb..is Agreement on thirty (30) days written notice unless otherwise agreed by such Assignor and NCPA. Assignor Covenants. Each Assignor covenants and agrees (a) to establish and collect rates and charges for the services and commodities provided by its Electric System sufficient to provide Revenues adequate to meet its obligations under this Agreement and to pay all other amounts payable from, and all lawful charges against or liens upon, the Revenues; (b) to make payments under this Agreement from the Revenues of, and as an operating expense of, its electric system; (c) to make payments under this Agreement whether or not there is an interruption in, interference with, or reduction or suspension of services provided under this Agreement (such payments are not subject to any reduction, whether by offset or otherwise, and regardless of whether any dispute exists); and (d) to operate its electric system and the business in connection therewith in an 12 efficient manner and at reasonable cost and to maintain its electric system in good repair, working order, and condition. SECTION 12 Administrative Cost Allocation 12.1 A proportionate share of administrative costs incurred by NCPA under this Agreement shall be allocated and invoiced to Assignor. The allocation of these costs will be based on two determinants: Assignor's Base Resource Percentage and the benefits received by Assignor hereunder. An annual true-up shall be performed to finally settle on administrative cost allocations to each Assignor for the prior year. 13.1 13.2 13.3 SECTION 13 Other Aqreements Joint Powers Agreement. This Agreement complements the Joint Powers ! Agreement. It extends the responsibilities and authorities assigned to the Commission and to the Generai--,,IVlanager under terms of the Joint Powers Agreement. Poolinq Agreement. takes precedence This Agreement supersedes the Pooling Agreement, and with respect with respect to issues addressed in this Agreement relating to the receipt, delivery, scheduling, accounting and billing for all Western Area Power Administration Base Resource Energy to which Assignor is entitled for as long as this Agreement is in effect. Other Aqreements. With the exception of Third Phase Agreements and Project Indentures of Trust, this Agreement shall upon its effective date, take precedence with respect to issues addressed in this Agreement and also addressed in any other agreement between Assignor and NCPA. With respect to issues common to Third Phase Agreements and this Agreement, Third Phase Agreements shall take precedence over this Agreement. ]3 SECTION 14 Western Electricity Coordinatinq Council 14.1 Consistency with Western Electricity Coordinatinq Council Standards, Criteria and Rules. The standards, criteria and rules adopted by NCPA committees and by NCPA under this Agreement shall be consistent with those adopted by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). SECTION Term of A_clreement 15.1 15.2 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective on the date on which it has been duly executed and delivered to NCPA by Assignor.. Termination. Of necessity, the term of this Agreement must Coincide with term of the underlying Assignment Contract. More specifically, this Agreement shall terminate automatically upon the termination of the Assignment Contract. Notwithstanding termination of this Agreement, any financial obligations incurred by Assignor hereunder shall survive, until satisfied. Assignor shall not be obligated to compensate NCPA, or any other Assignors, for loss of any benefits that would have accrued to NCPA, or other Assignors, if Assignor had not terminated this Agreement. Nor shall NCPA, or any other Base Resource Percentage Assignor, be obligated to compensate Assignor for any benefits that accrue to the remaining Assignors because of the termination. Reallocation of the costs and benefits of the Base Resource Percentage assignment after Assignor has withdrawn shall not give rise to any claim against Assignor by NCPA or other Assignors. Nor shall NCPA or any of the remaining Assignors be obligated to compensate Assignor for any benefits that accrue to the remaining Assignors because of such a reallocation of costs and benefits. 14 SECTION 16 Notices 16.1 Notice. Any notice, demand or request required or authorized by this Agreement shall be in wdting and shall either be personally delivered or transmitted to the Assignor at the address shown on the signature pages hereof. SECTION 17 Waiver of Defaults 17.1 18.1 Waiver. No waiver of the performance by Assignor of any obligation under this Agreement with respect to any default or any other matter arising in connection with this Agreement shall be effective unless agreed to by both Assignor and NCPA in writing. Any such waiver in any particular instance shall not be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent performance, default or matter. SECTION 18 Uncontrollable Forces Uncontrollable Forces. An Assignor shall not be considered to be in default in respect of any obligation hereunder if prevented from fulfilling such obligation by reason of uncontrollable forces. The term "uncontrollable forces" shall be deemed for the purposes hereof to mean storm, flood, lightning, earthquake, tsunami, fire, explosion, failure of facilities not due to lack of proper care or maintenance, civil disturbance, labor dispute, sabotage, war, national emergency, restraint by court or public authority, or other causes beyond the control of the affected Assignor which such Assignor could not reasonably have been expected to avoid by exercise of due diligence and foresight. Any Assignor affeCted by an uncontrollable force shall use due diligence to place itself in a position to fulfill its obligations hereunder and if unable to fulfill any obligation by reason of an uncontrollable force, such Assignor shall exercise due diligence to remove such disability with reasonable dispatch. Nothing in this Agreement shall require an Assignor to settle or compromise a labor dispute. SECTION 19 Liability 19.1 19.2 19.3 Liability. All of the privileges and immunities from liabilities, exemptions from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents or employees of any public agency which is an Assignor to this Agreement, while engaged in the performance of any of their functions or duties, shall apply to them in the same degree and extent when performing their respective public duties in connection with this Agreement. Division of Responsibility. Neither the General Manager, NCPA, an Assignor, nor an entity acting on behalf of Assignor, shall be responsible for the transmission, control, use, or application of electric capacity and energy provided under the this Agreement on the receMng Assignor's side of such Assignor's point of interconnection and shall not, in any event, be liable for damage or injury to any person or property whatsoe~er,, arising, accruing, or resulting from, in any manner, the receiving, transmission, control, use, application, or distribution by NCPA, or Assignor, or a corporation acting on behalf of NCPA or Assignor, of said capacity and energy on the receiving Assignor's side of such Assignor's point of interconnection. Indemnity. Each Assignor shall indemnify, defend, hold and save NCPA and the other Assignors harmless from any and all loss or damage sustained to any person or property and from any and all liability incurred by reason of any act or performance, or failure to act or perform, on the part of NCPA or the other Assignors. Such indemnification shall hold harmless the one indemnified, the members of its governing body, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all liability of whatever nature, including strict liability and any and all losses and damages, including consequential damages and injuries, 19.4 costs, and expenses, including expenses incurred in connection with investigating any claim or defending any action, and reasonable attomey's fees. Counsel Representation. Pursuant to the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1717 (a), Assignor and NCPA were represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of this Agreement as indicated below. In light of this representation, those terms of this Agreement which dictate the responsibility for bearing any attorney's fees incurred in the litigation or settlement in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of Section 19.3 were intentionally so drafted by the Assignor and NCPA. SECTION 20 Reports and Records 20.1 20.2 Reports. Assignor and NCPA shall each prepare and make available to the other all data necessary for each to (i) perform all duties required under this Agreement, and (ii) verify the accuracy of all amounts due and payable under this agreement. Examples of data to be made available by NCPA at Assignor's request include, but are not limited to: a. All load data relevant to A,ssignor's assignment of its Base Resource Percentage to NCPA. b. All ISO cost information relevant to determining the cost savings obtained bY Assignor due to its assignment of its Base Resource Percentage to NCPA. c. Such additional reports and records as are reasonably requested in writing; provided however, that the Assignor so requesting shall reimburse the other for reports and records not essentially completed or kept in the ordinary course of business. Reports to Other. Agencies. NCPA will submit such reports and records which are required or may be required by the California Energy Commission, the Western Area Power Administration, the Califomia Independent System Operator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other such local, state or federal agencies, as such reports and records are required for NCPA to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. SECTION 21 Assi_qnment of Aqreement 21.1 22.1 Limitations. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assignees of the Parties to this Agreement; provided, however, that, except as provided in the event of a default, and, except for the assignment by NCPA authorized hereby, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein shall b~ transfer'red or assigned by Assignor hereto except with the consent in writing of the NCPA provided, however, that such consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. No assignment or transfer of this Agreement shall relieve Assignor of any obligation hereunder, except as otherwise so provided herein. SECTION 22 ! Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration Settlement of Disputes. NCPA and Assignor agree to make best efforts to settle ali disputes among themselves connected with this Agreement as a matter of normal 'business under this Agreement. The procedures set forth in the remainder of this Section shall apply to all disputes that cannot be settled by NCPA and Assignor; provided, that the provisions of Section 11.4 shall first apply to all disputes involving invoice prepared by NCPA. Regarding agenda items adsing from this bilateral Agreement, for which there is a potential legal conflict of interests between the Assignor and NCPA, the Assignor's designated Commission member shall abstain from voting on such items at NCPA Commission meetings. 22.2 22.3 22.4 Role of the Commission. All disputes connected with this Agreement that cannot be resolved informally among the respective staffs shall be submitted to the Commission upon the written request of one or more Assignors. If the Commission cannot resolve a dispute within thirty (30) days after the dispute is submitted to it, Assignor may commence binding arbitration pursuant to Section 22.3. The Commission may suggest that a mediator with experience in the utility industry be asked to assist in such negotiations. The arbitration procedure provided for in 22.3 shall be used only as a last resort in the event that the dispute cannot be resolved through discussion, negotiations and mediation. Arbitration. A dispute that cannot be settled pursuant to Section 22.2 shall be settled by binding arbitration. Immediately after the conclusion of arbitration, Assignor and NCPA shall take whatever action is required to comply with the arbitrator's decision. Judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Expedited Dispute Resolution Procedure. If at any time Assignor or NCPA believes that the other has breached or may breach this Agreement by some disputed action, which dispute can not be timely resolved under procedures set ! forth in Section 22.2, written notice shall be promptly provided to the General Manager. Such notice shall provide.a.detailed explanation of the dispute and the position(s) of the Parties to the dispute. The notice shall also provide an explanation of why the dispute cannot be timely resolved under the procedures set forth in Section 22.2. Upon receipt of such notice, the General Manager and the Utility Director of Assignor shall consult to determine what actions are appropriate to effect a resolution of the dispute. In the event that the General Manager and the Utility Director cannot effect a resolution of the dispute satisfactory to all Parties within five (5) working days of receipt of such notice, the General Manager shall immediately notify the Chairman of the Commission and provide copies of the notice, together with any comments of the General Manager and the Utility Director, concerning the dispute. Upon receipt of such notice, the Chairman of the Commission shall either place the dispute on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Commission for the purpose of having the Commission mediate the dispute or if deemed necessary by the Chairman, due to the need for timely resolution, call a special meeting of the Commission for the purpose of having the Commission mediate the dispute. If the Commission cannot effect a resolution of the dispute at such meetings, the Parties shall immediately invoke the provisions of Section 22.3. SECTION 23 Amendments 23.1 Amendments. Unless otherwise set forth in this Section, this Agreement may be amended only by written instrument executed by Assignor and NCPA with the same formality as this Agreement; provided however that the Schedule(s) to this Agreement may be modified through a unanimous vote of the Assignors' NCPA Commission members provided that each Assignor's commission representative is present and votes for the passage of t~e amendment. SECTION 24 Severability 24.1 Severability. In the event that any of the terms, covenants or conditions'of this Agreement or the application of any such term, covenant or condition, shall be held invalid as to any person or circumstance by any court having jurisdiction, all other terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement and their application shall not be effected thereby, but shall remain in force and affect unless the court holds that such provisions are not severable from all other provisions of this Agreement. 20 SECTION 25 Governinq Law 25.1 Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed under the laws of the State of California. governed by, and NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY Approved as to form' By: By: Title: Title: Address for Notices ASSIGNOR Approved as to form: By: By: Title:. Title: Address for Notices 2! Schedule A The Allocation Alqorithm A-1 Allocation of Benefits other than Transmission Cost Savings Steps 1-9 determine each Assignor's monthly percentage allocator that will be used to distribute benefits of pooling. Step 10 uses that percentage allocator to distribute the benefits. Ail computational steps in this allocation algorithm will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with NCPA staff's goal of scheduling the assigned BR to maximize the economic market value of the BR. Step 1' Constrained own-load optimal dispatch: NCPA staff shall perform after-the- fact monthly "own,load" optimal dispatch of each Assignor's BR to establish the value of the individual BR allocation to each Assignor pre-assignments. The own-load dispatch shall be constrained by hourly loads equal to each Assignor's gross hourly loads multiplied by a forecast factor of 1.00 such that BR energy schedules cannot exceed 100% of load in any hour. in addition, revenues that the Assignor would have received from Western through the re-marketing of its "stranded" energy allocations (the portion of monthly energy allocations that cannot be utilized by the Assignor) will be added to this value. Value_OIL(i) = OIL dispatch(i) * MCP + Stranded_Revenue(i) where: Value O/L is the BR energy value in the own-load dispatch, ('i) represents each Assignor, O/L dispatch is the houdy own-load schedule of BR, MCP is the houdy NCPA Pool Market Clearing Price, and, Stranded Revenue is the estimated Western energy re-marketing revenue. Step 2: Net value of own-load constrained dispatch: All volumetric Western costs will be deducted from the values computed in Step 1. Fixed monthly BR costs and other fixed costs are not included in this step. NetValue_O/L(i) = Value_OIL(i) - VarCost_OIL(i) where: NetValue O/L is the own-load BR value adjusted for variable costs, and, VarCost O/L is all variable cost associated with Western BR, including exchange purchase costs, that each Assignor would have paid to Western to schedule its individual BR allocation. Step 3: Unconstrained own-load optimal dispatch: Perform individual optimal dispatches without load constraints. The difference in net value between this un- constrained net value and the NetValue_O/L of Step 2 shall be the allocation determinant for 50% of the assignment benefit computed in Step 7. NetBen_O/L(i) = Unconstrained_Disp(i) * MCP- VarCostPool_O/L(i) - NetValue_O/L(i) AIIocator_E(i) = NetBen_OIL(i) / (Sum of NetBen_O/L(i)) where:NetBen O/L is the net value increase when the load constraint is removed, Unconstrained Disp is the optimized BP, schedule without load constraint, VarCostPool_O/L is the variable cost incurred without load limits, and, Allocator E is the energy provider BP, value allocator used in step 7. .Step 4: Head-room value: Compute the value of load "head-mom" provided by each Assignor du'ring the month. Head-room value is, a function of each Assignor's net load (net of constrained own-load BP, schedules and other energy schedules subject to federal power marketing restrictions) in each time-step when NCPA's actual BP, schedule exceeds the sum of the Assignors' own-load BR energy schedules. In each hourly time step that NCPA's actual BR schedule exceeds the sum of O/k_dispatch in step 1, the HR_Value for each Assignor (i)is computed as: HR_MW(i) = Max[O, Load(i) - O/L_dispatch(i) - Other_Western(i)] HR_Value(i) = HR_MW(i) / (sum of HR_MW(i)) * (NCPA_BR- sum of O/L_dispatch(i)) * MCP where:HR MW is the net-Western load "head room", Other Western is the schedule of non-BP, Western energy, HP, Value is the proportional allocation of usable head room valuation, and, NCPA BP, is NCPA's actual schedule of Western BR. Step 5: Allocators for head-room providers- Compute the allocation determinant for 50% of the pooling benefit computed in step 7 on the basis of HR Value for the month. AIIocator_L(i) = HR_Value(i) / (sum of HR_Value(i)) Where Allocator L is the head-room provider value allocator used in step 7. Step 6: Net benefit of BR assiqnments: Compute the net benefit of BR assignments to NCPA as the difference between MCP energy value of NCPA's actual BR schedule - minus variable BR costs - minus the sum of NetValue O/L for the month. If the result is positive, then proceed to step 7. If negative, proceed to step 8. Net_Ben = NCPA_BR * MCP + Stranded_NCPA- VC_NCPA- (sum of NetValue_O/L(i)) where: Net Ben is the increase (or decrease)in BR value due to assignments, Stranded_NCPA is actual re-marketed energy revenues, VC NCPA is NCPA's variable BR costs including exchange energy / purchase costs, and, Stranded_NCPA is revenues received for energy re-marketed by Western for NCPA. Step 7 (Only if Net Ben is positive) Allocate positive Net_Ben: Allocate one-half of the Net_Ben using AIIocator_E and one-half using AIIocator_L. Proceed to Step 9. Assignor_Ben(i) = Net_Ben * (AIIocat0r_E(i) + AIIocator_L(i)) / 2 ! Where Assignor Ben is each Assignor's share of NCPA's assignment benefit. Step 8 (Only if Net Benefit is less than or equals zero) Zero pooling benefit: Set Assignor_Benefit value to zero for each Assignor. Proceed to Step 9. Assignor_Ben(i) = 0. Step 9' Assi_~n constant adjusted BR percentage shares for month: Determine each Assignor's percentage share of NCPA's BR by normalizing the sum of each Assignor's Assignor_Ben and NetValue_O/L. Each Assignor's share of NCPA's BR schedules in each time-step during the month shall be equal to the percentage computed in this step. (For example, if a member's share in a given month is calculated as 15% in this step, that member is assigned 15% of actual Western schedules in each time-step dudng that month.) BR_Pct(i) = [Assignor_Ben(i) + NetValue_O/L(i)] / sum of [Assignor_Ben(i) + NetValue_O/L(i)] ... Ill , where BR Pct(i) is each Assignor's share of NCPA BR schedules and associated benefits (e.g., re-marketed energy revenues). Step 10: Assiqn BR costs: Assign any difference between the actual NCPA_VCost (NCPA's actual BR variable costs) and the sum of the VarCost_O/L in the month, positive or negative, will be distributed to each Assignor using BR_Pct(i). Each Assignor's Western BR costs for the month (to be billed by NCPA) will equal the respective VarCost_O/L adjusted by this step added to the Assignor's share of fixed BR costs. BR_Cost(i) = VarCost_O/L(i) + FixedCost_O/L(i) - BR_Pct(i) * [NCPA_Vcost- (sum of VarCost_O/L(i))] where:BR Cost(i) is each Assignor's total monthly Base Resource cost, and, FixedCost O/L(i) is each Assignor's fixed Western BR cost. NCPA staff shall regularly monitor the results of this procedure and recommend corrective action to be taken if and when the application of this procedure results in counter-intuitive and/or unfair allocations of benefits and costs to the Assignors. A-2 Transmission Cost Savinqs Allocations After each month, NCPA staff will compute the difference between NCPA BR energy physically scheduled through an Assignor. that is directly connected to Western's transmission system and that Assignor's O/L_dispatch value computed as specified in Step 1. If this difference is positive, the direct-connect Assignor saved transmission charges and CAISO costs (e.g., GMC, Iow and high voltage access, etc.), to the extent that the over-scheduled BR displaced CAISO energy, by physically scheduling another Assignor's BR energy. The value of the transmission charge and CAISO cost savings will be determined and split on a 50/50 basis with the non-direct-connect Assignors whose BR energy was scheduled to the direct-connect Assignor(s). The direct-connect Assignor directly receives the benefit of avoiding transmission charges and CAiSO costs to the extent that the direct-connect Assignor actually displaced CAISO energy imports. The direct-connect Assignor will pay half of the transmission and CAISO savings that is achieved by scheduling other Assignor's shares of BR to its load (as determined by NCPA staff) to the non-direct-connect Assignors. These payments will be allocated to the non-direct-connect Assignors in proportion to their adjusted BR_Pct (from Step 9). Assignment 04-SNR-00777 REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CITY OF UKIAH'S BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE TO NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY , , BACKGROUND: 1.1 The City of Ukiah (Ukiah) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 1.2 Ukiah has entered into Contract 00-SNR-00355, dated November 17, 2000, with the Western Area Power Administration (Western); which provides Ukiah with a percentage of Western's Base Resource power beginning January 2005. 1.3 The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) is a joint powers agency, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 1.4 Ukiah is a member of NCPA. 1.5 As a member of NCPA, Ukiah desires to have Western assign Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage under Contract 00-SNR-00355 to NCPA so that NCPA may create a power resource portfolio for the mutual benefit of qualified NCPA members. ASSIGNMENT OF BASE RESOURCE PERCENTAGE: 2.1 Ukiah hereby requests assignment of its 0.32650 percentage of the Base Resource under Exhibit A to Contract 00-SNR-00355 to NCPA. 2.2 NCPA is agreeable to taking responsibility for Ukiah's 0.32650 percentage of the Base Resource. ' ' 2.3 Ukiah shall retain its Base Resource Contract 00-SNR-000355 with a 0.000 percent of the Base Resource during the term of assignment to NCPA. 2.4 Any allocation changes made pursuant to the 2004 Power Marketing Plan shall apply to the Base Resource Percentage referred to in Section 2.1 of this Assignment, regardless of the contract under which the allocation is being administered. 2.5 No action will be required of Ukiah under Contract 00-SNR-00355 during the time that NCPA is holding Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage under Contract 04-SNR-00782. Page 1 of 3 Assignment 04-SNR-00777 2.6 The Assignment shall remain in full force and effect until the earlier of: 2.6.1 December 31, 2024; or 2.6.2 Sixty (60).days after Western has approved Ukiah's written request for reassignment of its Base Resource Percentage, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 2.7 NCPA and Ukiah shall jointly and severally indemnify and hold Western harmless from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the Assignment. , AGREEMENT: All parties to the Assignment hereby agree that the Assignment will become effective on the first day of the first month following the date of approval by the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration or a later date if agreed to by Western and Ukiah. CITY OF UKIAH By: Title: Attest: Address: 300 Seminary Avenue By: Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Title: Date: Attest: By: Title: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY By: Title: Address: 180 Cirby Way Roseville, CA 95678 Date: Page 2 of 3 Assignment 04-SNR-00777 The above Request for Assignment of City of Ukiah's Base Resource Percentage under Contract 00-SNR-00355 to the Northern California Power Agency is hereby approved. Date: Michael S. Hacskaylo Administrator Western Area Power Administration Page 3 of 3 ITEH NO: 7a DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATTON FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IM PROVEM ENT PRO3ECT SUMMARY: At the November 3, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing and considered adopting a Resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the wastewater treatment plant improvement project. After considerable discussion, the Council continued the matter to allow the City Attorney time to review the comments made by an adjoining property owner's attorney. The City attorney has completed his review of those comments and has concluded that none of the legal arguments compel the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and therefore the City Council can move forward with approving the recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The City Attorney's comments are contained in the Memorandum included as Attachment No. 2. RECOMMENDED Ac'ri:ON: After the conduct of a public hearing, adopt the proposed Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the wastewater treatment plant improvement project. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not adopt the proposed Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Department of Public Utilities Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Memorandum from the City Attorney, dated November 9, 2004 APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City er RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS: 1. The City of Ukiah has designed improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant to improve the liquid treatment, solids treatment, and advanced water treatment processes to meet current and potential future regulatory requirements. 2. The City of Ukiah, as Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement project; and 3. The Initial Environmental Study revealed that the project could have significant adverse environmental impacts on biological and cultural resources; and 4. The Initial Environmental Study identified reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to successfully offset the potentially significant biological and cultural resource impacts to insignificant levels; and 5. CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the City to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with all comments received during the public review process prior to approving the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments, and responses to comments were considered by the City Council at a noticed public hearing on November 3, 2004, which was conducted in full compliance with all legal requirements. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted for consideration prior to or during the hearings it conducted and all testimony presented during the hearings as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments, response to comments, the Agenda Summary Staff Report, dated November 3, 2004, and all other documents comprising the administrative record of this decision, including the complete file in the City's Planning and Community Development Department and all studies and reports conducted, prepared or submitted in connection with the preparation of the Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Staff Report is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has also independently reviewed and considered this Resolution. 4. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the wastewater improvement plant project will be imposed on the project. In this way, full mitigation will be achieved. 5. The following lists the identified significant adverse impacts and corresponding mitigation measures: 1 of 3 Affachment # /" / _ Impact 1. Construction activities could disrupt nesting activities during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31). 2. Project development may directly impact 0.2 to 0.5 acres of potentially jurisdictional man-made drainage ditches and seasonal wetlands. Recommended mitigation measures If construction takes place outside of the nesting season (March 1 to August 31), then no mitigation is required. If construction takes place between March ! and August 3!, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities to determine the presence of nesting raptors within 300 feet of construction activity and nesting songbirds within 50 feet of construction activity. If no nesting birds are located, then no further mitigation is required. If construction activities are delayed or suspended during the nesting season for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site shall be re- surveyed. If nests are located, then a qualified biologist will establish an avoidance area around each raptor nest site a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest construction activity and around each songbird nest site of a distance to be determined by a qualified biologist based upon the species. If the establishment of an avoidance area for a nest is not possible, then the City shall defer construction until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. In addition, a consultation with CDFG shall be conducted to determine appropriate avoidance measures. Prior to the start of construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to identify and flag for avoidance all potential Waters of the U.S. including wetlands falling within 50 feet of the impact area. · The City shall obtain the appropriate Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit from the Corps, if necessary, for the fill of the seasonal wetlands that occur on the site. The City shall fulfill any mitigation measures required by the Corps. · The City shall obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, if necessary, from the RWQCB. · Tf impacts are proposed for the drainage ditches located on the Project site, and they are determined to be CDFG jurisdictional, then the City shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG for work done in the drainage ditches and comply with permit conditions. 2of3 Affachmenf ~ 6. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Exhibit A) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and found adequate by the City Council. 7. On September 2, 2004, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission conducted a public hearing and found that the Ukiah wastewater treatment plant improvement project would not cause or create safety hazards or noise problems for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area, and that the project was consistent with the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 8. Conclusions: The City Council is able to conclude that based on the whole of the record, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. 9. All documents constituting the record upon which the City Council's decision is based can be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. Custodian of the documents: Director of Planning and Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk 3of3 Attachment Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 405 W. Perkins Street P.O. Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 e-mail: drapport@pacbell.net David J. Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Mary Jane Sheppard MEMORANDUM (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council members David J. Rapport, City Attorney November 9, 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Wastewater Treatment Plant Project During the November 3, 2004, public hearing on the above-referenced negative declaration, Mr. Steven P. Belzer, representing Richard and Donna Mattern, made a series of legal arguments in support of his position that the City could not approve the negative declaration and is required to prepared an Environmental Impact Report (AEIR@) for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (ACEQA@). The City Council continued its consideration of the comments received during the public hearing until November 17, 2004, to allow me time to research and respond to the points raised by Mr. Belzer. After conducting that research, in my opinion, none of the legal arguments made by Mr. Belzer prevent the City Council from approving the mitigated negative declaration. I do not believe his arguments compel the City to prepare an EIR for this project. In this memorandum, I will state each of Mr. Belzer=s points, as I understand them, and provide a brief response. 1. The negative declaration fails to identify or analyze the growth inducing impacts of the project. Mr. Belzer points out that the project will increase the treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant which will allow the City and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to provide sewer service to new development. He contends that CEQA requires the City to evaluate the environmental impacts of the new development as growth inducing or cumulative impacts of the project. Response: This same argument was recently made in a legal challenge to an EIR prepared by the Sonoma County Water Agency for proposed increases in its diversion of water from the Russian River. The court in Friends of the Eel River v. SCWA (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 877, rejected the argument, stating: The Project is designed to accommodate the projected population growth of the eight cities and counties served by the Agency, as that growth is forecast under the general plans for these cities and counties. Between 1987 and 1995, EIR's were prepared for each of these general plans. In considering the growth inducing impacts of the Project, the Agency incorporates the discussion contained in these general plan Attachment # Z'- ) Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Council members Subject: Comments on Negative Declaration Date:November 9, 2004 Page 2 EIR's. Appellants now contend the Agency's EIR is deficient because the Agency was required to prepare its own analysis of the consequences of growth in these eight cities and counties. The Agency argues that its reliance on these general plans is permitted under Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (b)(1)(B), which provides that a cumulative impacts analysis can rely on a "summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact." We agree. (Emphasis added.) As in the SCWA case, the wastewater treatment plant project is designed to produce enough treatment capacity to serve the development which has been approved in the general plans for the City of Ukiah and the area served by the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. In analyzing the growth inducing and cumulative impacts of the project, the negative declaration relies on the general plans which is authorized by Section 15130(b)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The negative declaration defers the development of mitigation measures in violation of CEQA. Mr. Belzer cites Sundstrum v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cai.App. 3d 296, for the proposition that where a public agency has identified adverse environmental impacts that a project will cause, it cannot defer the development of mitigations but must develop and impose the mitigations before it certifies the environmental documents for and approves the project. He contends that the negative declaration identifies potential adverse impacts of the wastewater treatment plant project on wetlands, the flood plain and wildlife in the Plant Expansion Area, but defers to later the development of specific mitigations to address these impacts. He gives the example that the Army Corp of Engineers will require the City to delineate wetlands in the expansion area in connection with its application for a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. ' 1344). He maintains that under Sundstrum the wetlands must be delineated and measures adopted to protect the wetlands before the negative declaration and the project are approved. Response: Adoption of the negative declaration before the City Council will not, in my opinion, violate CEQA as interpreted in Sundstrum. In Sundstrum, the county planning department prepared an environmental checklist in connection with the initial study for a private sewage treatment plant. The court found the negative declaration deficient, because the initial study prepared for the negative declaration failed to identify the source of the information relied upon, failed to reveal consultation with other agencies and failed to explain items checked as AnO significant adverse impacts with mitigation. @ Moreover, in that case, evidence of potential adverse impacts was introduced during the public review and hearings on the proposed negative declaration, including adverse impacts on soil stability and drainage from the disposal of treated wastewater. In response to this new information, during the appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors, the planning staff proposed as a mitigation measure that prior to construction, the project applicant submit additional hydrological studies for the approval of the planning staff with mitigation measures recommended by the study incorporated as requirements of the use permit. The court found that this provision requiring the applicant to prepare additional studies for approval by planning staff violated several requirements in the Guidelines. First, Section 15070(b)(1) provides that if an applicant proposes measures that will mitigate environmental effects, the project plans must be revised to incorporate these mitigation measures before the negative Attachment # Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Council members Subject: Comments on Negative Declaration Date:November 9, 2004 Page 3 declaration is released for public review. Since the condition proposed by planning staff contemplated that project plans may be revised to incorporate needed mitigation measures after the final adoption of the negative declaration, the condition violated this procedural requirement of the Guidelines. Second, Section 15084(e) requires that draft environmental documents sent out for public review reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency. In addition, the document must be presented to the decision-making body of the agency for approval and this responsibility cannot be delegated to planning staff. (See, e.g., Kleist v. City of Glendale (1976)56 Cal.App.3d 770, 779.) The court believed deferred hydrological studies would circumvent public review of the additional evaluation and proposed mitigation measures. The court also considered mitigations which required review and approval by other regulatory agencies after approval of the negative declaration. It reached the opposite conclusion as to such conditions. Unlike the hydrological studies to be undertaken by the applicant and approved by county planning staff, the court said that it did not violate CEQA to require compliance with air and water quality standards adopted by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Mendocino County Air Quality Control Board. It separately addressed'a use permit condition that required approval of the treatment plant design and a sludge removal plan by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Of these conditions requiring approval of project components by other regulatory agencies, after adoption of the negative declaration, the court said: The condition of the use permit relating to sludge disposal presents a distinct procedural issue. On its face, the condition is entirely proper, it merely provides that "[an] approved plan for the disposal of sludge shall be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division." A negative declaration may include "[mitigation] measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects." ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ' 15071, subd. (e).) A condition requiring compliance with environmental regulations is a common and reasonable mitigating measure. (See Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 424, 430 [187 Cal. Rptr. 53].) The similar conditions in the use permit relating to compliance with air and water quality standards are beyond criticism. (Emphasis added.) The problem with the sludge removal plan was that specific evidence had been introduced during the administrative review that there was no place in Mendocino County which would accept sludge from the wastewater treatment plant. Because the applicant had no present plan for sludge removal and specific evidence had been produced that no solution to sludge disposal was readily available, a disposal plan should be developed and reviewed for environmental effects before the negative declaration is approved. None of the defects in the negative declaration reviewed in Sundstrum apply to the negative declaration before the City Council. First, the initial study does identify the source of information for each item in the checklist. It explains the items checked, ALess than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.@ (See Chapter 4, Discussion of Environmental Checklist.) It fully discloses agencies consulted and their responses. Second, the proposed mitigations do not rely on additional studies by the City, but rather include compliance with environmental standards enforced by other regulatory agencies, such as the Army Corp of Engineers and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Unlike the Sundstrum case, no evidence has Affachment # Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Council members Subject: Comments on Negative Declaration Date:November 9, 2004 Page 4 been introduced or presented to the City that there is no readily apparent solution to an identified environmental problem. Rather, the proposed negative declaration contains meaningful information reasonably justifying an expectation that compliance with these standards will fully mitigate any possible adverse effects on wetlands and wildlife. In fact, the negative declaration determined that there would not be any increased flood hazard, because structures will not be placed in the floodway, and, by definition, structures within the 100 year flood plain do not increase flood hazard, if constructed in compliance with FEMA standards. Specific mitigation measures are proposed for wildlife protection. The general location of seasonal wetlands is identified, even if they are not precisely mapped. (See figure 4-2 Wetland Assessment, p. 4-13.) Moreover, the wetlands assessment in the negative declaration indicates that Project development may directly impact only 0.2-0.5 acres of man-made drainage ditches and seasonal wetlands, and that these impacts can be mitigated by compliance with the Clean Water Act requirements to obtain a section 404 permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. The Section 404 permit is issued based on specific standards adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency. (See generally 33 U.S.C. '1344.) Unlike in Sundstrum, here, there has been no evidence presented that these approvals won=t address the environmental impacts the environmental standards have been adopted to protect. (See Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cai.App. 4th 1359, 1397 [deferral of the formulation of mitigation measures until after project approval allowed where an agency commits itself or has to satisfy performance standards or criteria that are likely to be met and that, if met, will ensure avoidance of significant effects.) Based on this analysis, I do not believe that the proposed negative declaration improperly defers the development of mitigation measures as Mr. Belzer argues. 3. The negative declaration defers a determination that construction of wastewater treatment plant components on lands subject to an agricultural preservation contract (Aa Williamson Act contract@) is consistent with the requirements of the Williamson Act. Some of the land in the Plant Expansion Area is subject to a Williamson Act contract. These contracts restrict land covered by the contract to agricultural uses. In exchange, the property owner pays a lower property tax. A property owner can cancel a contract with nine year=s prior notice to the County. He may also apply for immediate cancellation, but the County may grant the application only if it can make specified findings. Because the contract must be cancelled before the City can use these properties for public facilities, Mr. Belzer argues that the negative declaration is deficient because it fails to address whether these findings can be made. Response: As is explained in Response 6b, separate provisions of the Williamson Act apply to an acquisition of property subject to a Williamson Act contract by a public agency for use in connection with constructing wastewater treatment facilities. (See Government Code ' ' 51290-51295.) Pursuant to these sections, the contract is cancelled automatically based solely on two findings by the City: (1) the land was not selected primarily to lower the cost of acquisition and (2) there is no other land not subject to a Williamson Act contract where it is reasonably feasible to locate the facilities. (See Government Code ' 51291.5.) The Response sets for the facts that support these two findings. 4. City must fully design all facilities within proposed the Plant Expansion Area Mr. Belzer argues that the City must fully design all of the facilities that it intends to locate within the Plant Expansion Area and evaluate the impacts of those fully designed facilities before it can approve either a negative declaration or an EIR for the project. Affachment # Z...-- ~ -- UKIAH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO To: From: RE: Date: City Council Charley Stump, Director of Planning and CommuniL-y DevelopmentZ' Revised Resolution for the WWTP Mitigated Negative Declaration November 17, 2004 Attached is a copy of a revised Resolution for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Mitigated Negative Declaration. It was brought to my attention that the Resolution attached to the Agenda Summary Report did not include the impacts and recommended mitigation measures for cultural resources as listed in the Initial Environmental Study. This was an oversight on my part. The attached revised Resolution includes all identified impacts and recommended mitigation measures, and is intended to replace the copy attached to the Agenda Summary Report. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS: 1. The City of Ukiah has designed improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant to improve the liquid treatment, solids treatment, and advanced water treatment processes to meet current and potential future regulatow requirements. 2. The City of Ukiah, as Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement project; and 3. The Initial Environmental Study revealed that the project could have significant adverse environmental impacts on biological and cultural resources; and 4. The Initial Environmental Study identified reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to successfully offset the potentially significant biological and cultural resource impacts to insignificant levels; and 5. CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the City to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with all comments received during the public review process prior to approving the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments, and responses to comments were considered by the City Council at a noticed public hearing on November 3, 2004, which was conducted in full compliance with all legal requirements. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted for consideration prior to or during the hearings it conducted and all testimony presented during the hearings as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments, response to comments, the Agenda Summary Staff Report, dated November 3, 2004, and all other documents comprising the administrative record of this decision, including the complete file in the City's Planning and Community Development Department and all studies and reports conducted, prepared or submitted in connection with the preparation of the Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Staff Report is incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has also independently reviewed and considered this Resolution. 4. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the wastewater improvement plant project will be imposed on the project. In this way, full mitigation will be achieved. 5. The following lists the identified significant adverse impacts and corresponding mitigation measures: lof4 Impact Recommended mitigation measures · D1. Construction activities could disrupt nesting activities during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31). D3. Project development may directly impact 0.2 to 0.5 acres of potentially jurisdictional man-made drainage ditches and seasonal wedands. If construction takes place outside of the nesting season O~arch 1 to August 31), then no mitigation is required. If construction takes place between March 1 and August 31, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the start of any construction activities to determine the presence of nesting raptors within 300 feet of construction actMty and nesting songbirds within 50 feet of construction activity. If no nesting birds are located, then no further mitigation is required. If construction activities are delayed or suspended during the nesting season for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site shah be re-surveyed. If nests are located, then a qualified biologist will establish an avoidance area around each raptor nest site a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest construction activity and around each songbird nest site of a distance to be determined by a qualified biologist based upon the species. If the establishment of an avoidance area for a nest is not possible, then the City shah defer construction until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. In addition, a consultation with CDFG shah be conducted to determine appropriate avoidance measures. Prior to the start of construction, the City shah retain a qualified biologist to identify and flag for avoidance all potential Waters of the U.S. including wetlands falling xvithin 50 feet of the impact area. The City shah obtain the appropriate Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit from the Corps, if necessary, for the fill of the seasonal wetlands that occur on the site. The CiD' shah fulfill any mitigation measures required by the Corps. The City shah obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, if necessary, from the RWQCB. If impacts are proposed for the drainage ditches located on the Project site, and they are determined to be CDFG jurisdictional, then the City shah obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG for work done in the drainage ditches and comply with permit conditions. 2of4 Impact El, E2, E4. Ground disturbance and excavation activities could unearth significant cultural resources or human remains. Recommended mitigation measures · A focused, strategic program of on-site archaeological monitoring should be implemented during excavation activities at the treatment plant and plant expansion area. The monitor would be regularly present during excavation activities and would prepare a report following their completion. In the event that any archaeological resources are uncovered, there should be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area until the find has been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and appropriate site-specific mitigation has been identified to protect, preserve, remove, or restore the artifacts uncovered. In the event that any human remains are uncovered during construction activity, there should be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area until after the County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required or such investigation has occurred and appropriate actions have been taken, and (if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin) the descendants from the deceased Native American(s) have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of; with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 6. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Exhibit A) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and found adequate by the City Council. 7. On September 2, 2004, the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission conducted a public hearing and found that the Ukiah wastewater treatment plant improvement project would not cause or create safety hazards or noise problems for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area, and that the project was consistent with the Mendocino County Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 8. Conclusions: The City Council is able to conclude that based on the v~hole of the record, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, may have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. 3of4 9. All documents constituting the record upon which the City Council's decision is based can be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. Custodian of the documents: Director of Planning and Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NC)ES: ABSENT: ABSTAI N: Eric Larson, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, Deputy City Clerk 4of4 ITEM NO: ?b DATE: November 17, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON APPEAL FILED BY FRED BELLOWS AND CATHERINE UNDERMILL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE GRAEBER USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR PROJECT AT 290 HIGHLAND AVENUE SUMMARY: On September 22, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, and after considerable public testimony and discussion, voted 5-1 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve a Use Permit and Variance to allow the construction of a single family residence on the narrow vacant parcel located at 290 Highland Avenue. Mr. Fred Bellows and Ms. Catherine Indermill, neighboring property owners to the north of the project site filed a timely appeal objecting to the Commission's action. Accoding to the Ukiah City Code, the City Council must conduct a public hearing to consider and act on the appeal. BACKGROUND: The project applicant, Mr. Fred Graeber, is proposing to construct a 2,543 square foot 15 to 22-foot high craftsman style single family residence on the site. Due to the narrow 60-foot width of the parcel, as well as the large yard setback requirements of the hillside zoning district, Mr. Graeber is proposing to locate the house closer to the property lines than typically allowed on steep property. Accordingly, in addition to the required Use Permit for construction in the hillside zoning district, front and side yard setback variances are being sought for the project. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Support the Planning Commission's action and deny the appeal filed by Mr. Fred Bellows and Ms. Catherine Indermill. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing and 2) Disagree with the Planning Commission's action, make the required findings, and deny the Use Permit and Variance applications. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed as required by the Ukiah City Code. Requested by: Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill, Appellants Prepared by: Chadey Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: , 2. 3. 4. . Bellows/Indermill Appeal Letter, dated October4, 2004 Site location map, air photo, elevation drawings, and yard setback diagram Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 22, 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and Response to Comments (City Council, City Manager, and City Attomey only) Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 22, 2004 Section 9135 - Ukiah City Code: Purpose of Hillside Distdct APPROVED: Candace Ho'r~ley, City M~nager PROJECT DETAILS: Approval of the project as proposed would allow the residence to be located 20-feet from Highland Avenue rather than the required 30-feet. The applicant seeks this relief to reduce grading and site disruption on this steep parcel, and to reduce its impact on the residents to the north. He is also proposing to locate it 6-feet from the north side property line rather the required 30-feet to facilitate the use of a curved driveway and avoid backing onto Highland Avenue. Finally, he is proposing to locate the residence 14-feet from the south side property line rather than the required 30-feet. Mr. Graeber believes that these proposed yard setbacks are warranted because the lot is only 60-feet wide, and the hillside zoning district requires 30-foot yard setbacks for property with an average slope of 15 percent. Stdct adherence to these yard setback requirements would render this unusually narrow 60-foot wide legal lot of record undevelopable. THE PROJECT SITE: The project site is located on the edge of the lower hillside zoning district in west Ukiah. The site totals approximately 16,500 square feet in area and has an unusually narrow width of 60-feet. The site has a "bowl" shape to it and is steeper on its western portion. While the overall average slope of the parcel exceeds 15 percent, the proposed building site is considerably less steep as it approaches Highland Avenue. The subject parcel is 60-feet wide, which is unusually narrow when compared to other hillside zoning district parcels in the area. The hillside parcels to the north that front Highland Avenue have an average width of approximately 110-feet; with the smallest being 80-feet (see Attachment No. 2-1). REASONS FOR APPEAL: Dudng the Planning Commission meeting, the appellants raised a number of issues and concerns about the project. They reiterated points made in their August 20, 2004 correspondence to the Commission and City Council (included with Attachment No. 4), which included concerns about drainage, questions regarding the adequacy of the soils/geotechnical investigation, the invasion of their privacy, and the "undevelopability" of the subject parcel. Drainage: The appellants believe that the drainage plans for the site were inadequate and that the proposed drainage improvements would not properly handle the run-off from the site without impacting nearby properties along Highland Avenue and Clay Street. As indicated in the Project Summary section of this Staff Report, the applicants were required to submit a Drainage Plan, which was submitted in June 2004. This comprehensive plan was prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The focus of the plan is to intercept and collect storm water run-off above the building site and route it away from the neighboring property to the north and the proposed residence, and into the storm drainage system along Highland Avenue. Numerous catch basins, valley gutters, and residential gutters/downspouts are proposed to accomplish this important task. The City Civil Engineers in the Public Works Department have reviewed the proposed Drainage Plan and visited the site to confirm their conclusions, and have concluded that it represents standard engineering practices, is adequate, and will ensure the proper collection and disbursement of storm water run-off. On September 13, 2004, concerned neighbors met with Public Works Staff, reviewed the engineered Drainage Plan, and it appears that the majodty of their concerns were satisfied. The Planning Commission reviewed the information contained in the record, considered the public testimony, and concluded that as mitigated and conditioned, the drainage issues on the site were resolved. Soils Investiqation: The appellants have expressed concern that no soil test pits were dug in the "direct area of foundation planning", and therefore the soil testing method was inadequate. Review of the technical studies prepared for the project revealed that the professional Geotechnical Engineer conducted standard and routine soil tests for the proposed project. The location of the three test pits were strategically located to provide the engineerwith an idea of the soil conditions on the entire site and immediate area. It is important for the engineer to have an understanding of the soil conditions of the approximate home site, as well as other areas of the parcel. The second test pit was dug approximately 15-feet from the location of the home site considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is noted that the applicants have recently submitted a modified Site Plan to shift the location of the house 10-feet closer to Highland Avenue, which places it approximately 5- feet from test pit number 2. All three test pits revealed similar soil conditions, which according to the engineer is common for this area, and was expected. The geotechnical engineer found these soil conditions to be adequate for foundation support for the proposed structure. Furthermore, the engineer stated in a conversation with Staff on September 8, 2004, that it is common engineering practice not to excavate soil test pits under where foundations are proposed, but rather in close proximity. This is to avoid placing a foundation on top of an area that has been rendered loose and uncompacted. After considering all the information contained in the record as well as the public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission concluded that the geotechnical and soils investigative work were performed according to standard engineering practices, and that the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Reportwere prepared by a qualified registered professional geotechnical engineer. It also concluded that based on this information, the subsurface soil on the site would provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structure. Invasion of Privacy: Mr. Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill, owners of the property adjacent to the north, have expressed concern that the location of the proposed residence will significantly invade their privacy. They are concerned that the proposed 6-foot side yard setback places the house too close to theirs, and that the close proximity would impact their privacy and the livability of their property. At the Planning Commission meeting, they also mentioned that the proposed deck on top of the garage would impose on their privacy. The proposed residence is situated approximately 30-feet in distance and at approximately 10-feet below the Bellows/Indermill residence in elevation. While the majority of the Planning Commission did not agree that a significant invasion of privacy will result from the proposed location of the Graeber house, it did agree with Staff's conclusion that the proposed 6-foot side yard setback is out of character with the side yard setbacks of developed hillside properties in the immediate area. The Commission concluded that the proposed residence could be more centrally located on the site, which would provide two 10-foot side yard setbacks, and still accommodate the curved driveway (see discussion of the Variance below). This would involve shifting the residence 4-feet to the south, and result in a side yard setback more compatible with existing developed hillside parcels in the area. The Planning Commission action included adding a condition that the residence be located a minimum of 10-feet from each side property line. As noted in the September 22, 2004 minutes, the Commission felt that because the deck on top of the proposed garage was lower in elevation and closer to Highland Avenue than the Bellows/Indermill residence, it would have a significant impact on their pdvacy. Developability of the Parcel: The appellants also expressed concern regarding the developability of the subject property. Statements have been made that because the parcel is narrow and the required yard setbacks large, the parcel cannot and should not be developed. The Ukiah City Code allows a property owner to pursue a variance for deviating from development standards, and if successful may develop the property accordingly. Odd shaped, small or narrow lots such as the subject property, which are surrounded by larger parcels governed by the same zoning classification are candidates for variances and can be approved provided all the required findings can be made. In other words, if a small narrow legal parcel of record surrounded by larger parcels with the same zoning designation is essentially "unbuildable" with any structure because of the yard setback requirements, it would be a candidate for variance relief. The applicant has applied for the required variance for side and front yard setback relief. The Planning Commission visited the site, considered all the information in the record, as well as public testimony, and conditionally approved the Variance application. A discussion of the Variance request is provided below. DISCUSSION OF YARD SETBACK VARIANCES: As described above, the subject property is 60- feet wide and burdened with 30-foot side, rear, and front yard setback requirements. Stdct adherence to the 30-foot side yard setback requirements would render the parcel undevelopable, and perhaps place the City is a questionable legal position. The following text discusses the front and side yard setback issues. Front Yard: Mr. Graeber is proposing a 20-foot front yard setback, where 30-feet are required. The purpose of moving the proposed residence closer to the Highland Avenue right-of-way is to reduce the amount of cuffing and grading to prepare the site for construction. The closer you come to Highland Avenue from the rear of the subject property, the more level it gets. The "bowl" shape, narrowness, and steepness appear to constitute special circumstances in terms of the physical features of the parcel. Review of properties in the area reveals many single family residences located approximately 20-feet from the right-of-way. These residences include the cottage to the south at 300 Highland Avenue and the Wildberger home at the corner of Clay Street and Highland Avenue. In addition, there are existing or approved garage structures with a 20-foot front yard setback. These include the garage (with living space above) at 240 Highland Avenue, and the garage recently approved and under construction on the Bellows/Indermill property adjacent to the north. Based on the location of these structures, the Planning Commission concluded that granting the front yard variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Planning Commission was unable to identify any detrimental impacts to surrounding property owners that would result from the structure being 20-feet from the Highland Avenue right-of-way, rather than the normally required 30-feet. As indicated above, there are residences and accessory structures in the area that are located 20-feet from the street. This is not necessarily surprising, because the standard for many years up until the late 1990's was a 20-foot front yard setback for the R-1 (single family residential) zoning district. The Commission concluded that the proposed structure would not "loom" over other properties, block solar exposure, or result in other detrimental impacts. Side Yard Setbacks: As indicated above, if the 30-foot side yard setback requirements are strictly adhered to on the 60-foot wide parcel, there would be no space for any structures. This standard, as applied to neighboring parcels under the same zoning classification does not present this constraint to development, because they average 110-feet in width, and none are less than 80-feet in width. The Commission concluded that this unusually narrow width constituted a unique special circumstance applicable to the subject lot when compared with other lots in the immediate hillside area. Review of the aerial photographs of the area, as well as field surveys reveal that portions of the residences on the parcels to the south and north both appear to be setback approximately 10-feet from the side yard property lines. The Commission found that the cottage on the adjoining parcel to south had a similar sized side yard setback from the property line it shares with the subject parcel. It also found that two parcels in the Myszka subdivision to the north have side yard setbacks of approximately 10-feet. Accordingly, the Commission found that a 6-foot side yard setback for a residence in the area appears to be out of character, and therefore potentially a grant of special privilege. It determined that requiring the two side yard setbacks to be 10-feet, rather than 6 and 14-feet would be consistent with some surrounding parcels and therefore not a grant of special privilege (see PC Staff Report Attachment No. 3: Comparison Illustration - 6-foot vs. 10-foot side yard setbacks). DISCUSSION OF USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENCE: The Use Permit is required because the hillside zoning distdct requires one for all construction on parcels with an average slope of 15 percent or greater. The purpose of this discretionary review process is to thoroughly review the proposal, evaluate the environmental conditions of the site, and ensure that the project will not have an adverse impact on the public's health, safety, and general welfare. In this case, the project has been thoroughly reviewed, required technical information has been submitted and found acceptable, the required environmental analysis has been completed, and no significant detrimental impacts have been identified. Accordingly, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the Use Permit application. CONCLUSION: The project is an infill single family residential development on a narrow steep "bowl-shaped" parcel in the lower hillside zoning district. All utilities are readily available, the site has been thoroughly examined by geotechnical and civil engineers, and the building designer has created a craftsman style streamlined design that steps down the hillside with a height ranging from 15-feet to 22-feet. The applicants are proposing to place the proposed residence closer to the side yard property lines than normally permitted in the hillside area, because the parcel is uniquely narrow. They also want to locate it closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce the cutting and grading on the site by roughly a third. After reviewing the application materials, conducting site visits, analyzing the neighborhood, and discussing issues with the applicant and concerned neighbors, the Commission concluded that the findings for the proposed front yard setback could be made, but the findings for the proposed 6-foot side yard setback could not be made. However, based on the character of the neighborhood, and more importantly, the proximity of some existing single family residences to side property lines, the Commission determined that it could make the findings for two 10-foot side yard setbacks. It also concluded that the findings for the Use Permit could be made, and therefore the Commission adopted the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approved the project. There was one dissenting vote from the Commission (Puser). As indicated at the top of page 13 of the Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment No. 5), Ms. Puser supported the concept of infill development on vacant lots, but felt that the size of the proposed residence was to large for the subject parcel. FINDINGS: The Planning Commission made the following findings to support its conditional approval of the Vadance and Use Permit applications: Sideyard Setback Variance: , The 60-foot width of the subject property is uniquely narrow when compared to nearby properties in the hillside zoning district because the other parcels average 110-feet in width, with the smallest being 80-feet in width. This represents a special circumstance applicable to the subject property, which deprives it of privileges enjoyed by other nearby properties with the same zoning classification. These privileges include building a structure on the subject parcel without the need for relief from the side yard setback requirements. . The strict application of the 30-foot side yard setback requirement would render the 60-foot wide property unbuildable, which is not the case for surrounding properties which are wider and can be reasonably developed according to the side yard setback requirements. , The issuance of a Variance for a six-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because no other nearby residences in the hillside area are developed with 6-foot side yard setbacks. However, the issuance of a Variance for a ten-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because nearby parcels to the north (Eversole at 1227 Myszka Place and Casazza at 1207 Myszka Place), as well as the small residence on the adjoining parcel to the south have 10-foot side yard setbacks. . The issuance of a Variance for a six-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would be detrimental to the adjoining property owner to the north because it would be situated extremely close to the neighbor's driveway, and the structure would impose on the outdoor living area and the ability for the neighbors to enjoy their properties by creating a congested and compact built environment inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A 10-foot wide side yard setback would provide space necessary to reduce building congestion and the imposing presence of the proposed residence on the neighbor to the north. Front Yard Setback: o . . The "bowl" shape of the parcel, very steep rear yard, as well as the way it levels off just before Highland Avenue represents unique topography and a special circumstance when compared with surrounding properties, which are generally steep all the way to Highland Avenue. This unique topographic circumstance creates a natural building envelope closer to the front portion of the site, which eliminates the deeper cutting, excavation and overall grading that would be required for a 30-foot front yard setback. Other developed parcels in the immediate hillside zoning district have front yard setbacks of approximately 20-feet. These properties include APN 001-241-10 and APN 001-201-05, and therefore the granting of a Vadance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The granting of a Variance for a 20-foot front yard setback would result in approximately a 1/3 reduction in the amount of cutting, excavating and grading associated with the project, which would reduce potential detriment to surrounding property owners by reducing dust, noise, and the overall amount of construction time. , The granting of a Variance for a 20-foot front yard setback would reduce nuisance level impacts to the property owner to the north by locating the garage roof deck further to the east and away from the outdoor living area of the neighbor. Use Permit Findinqs: . The proposed project, as conditioned would not have an adverse impact on the health, safety, or general welfare of surrounding property owners or the general public for the following reasons: The geology, soils, and hydrology of the site have been examined by licensed professionals, found adequate for the proposed development project, and their conclusions and findings have been confirmed by the City Engineer. The additional required 4-feet of side yard setback beyond the 6-feet proposed by the applicant provides the space necessary to reduce building congestion and the imposing presence of the proposed residence on the neighbor to the north, and results in the subject development being in substantial conformance with at least one of the side yard setbacks of adjacent parcels to both the south and north. The 15-foot to 22-foot high craftsman style residence has been designed to conform to, and "step-down" the topography of the site, and is compatible with the surrounding architecture of existing residences. The proposed project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan because it represents an infill housing development that as mitigated, does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and is not out of character with the style and way surrounding residential properties are developed. CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL: The Planning Commission imposed the following conditions of project approval: General Conditions . . , . The Plans submitted for a Building Permit and all subsequent construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved and modified (side yard setbacks) herein, labeled Exhibit "A" in the Graeber Use Permit 04-03 /Vadance 04-40, on file with the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development. All road and infrastructure construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah, except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the City Council. No site preparation or construction/improvements (road, grading, drainage, utilities, etc.) shall be performed without the approval of a Site Improvement/Grading Permit from the Department of Public Works. The Plans submitted for a Site Improvement/Grading Permit shall include a Final Erosion Control Plan. The applicants shall obtain any permit or approval which is required by law, regulation, or Ordinance, required by local, State, or Federal agency. 5. All road/driveway paving shall be a minimum of 2" (inches) of asphalt concrete with a 6" (inch) aggregate base. . In addition to any particular condition, which might be imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time a Building Permit is approved and issued. . A Building Permit for the development shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit, or the Use Permit shall be subject to the City's permit revocation process and procedures. In the event the Building Permit cannot be issued within the stipulated period from the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if no new circumstances affect the project which otherwise would render the original approval inappropriate or illegal. It is the applicant's responsibility in such cases to propose the one-year extension to the Planning Department prior to the two-year expiration date. . The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four (24) consecutive months. , Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. 10. A list of the conditions of project approval shall be included as a plan sheet with the construction drawings submitted for a Building Permit. SoilslGeotechnical Conditions 11. Surface strippings shall not be used as fill except in landscape areas. 12. Prior to placing any fill material, it shall be inspected and approved by a soils engineer, and the report shall be submitted to the City Public Works department for review and approval. 13. All fill material shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. 14. The fill used for the project shall not contain boulders over 12 inches in dimension and not more than 15% of the fill shall consist of cobbles or boulders larger than 6 inches. All boulders must be removed from the site or stored on-site at a location approved by the project engineer. This requirement may mean that some of the rock excavated from cuts cannot be used as engineered fill. 15. Fill placement shall be performed according to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated May 26, 2004. 16. Any fill placed on slopes steeper than 5H:IV shall be keyed into the existing slope in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 17. The upper 12 inches of subgrade below the driveway/road shall be scarified and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. 18. All trench backfilling shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated May 26, 2004. 19. All grading work on the project site shall be routinely inspected by a professional/certified soil engineer. Field density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate the adequacy of the contractor's work. After grading is completed and the soil engineer has finished the observation of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except with the approval of and observation of the soil engineer in consultation with the City Public Works Department Staff. The contractor shall be responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded area and adjoining areas during construction. 20. All cut and fill slopes shall be mulched and seeded at the completion of construction to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. 21. Riprap shall be placed at both the entrances and outlets of all culverts to reduce erosion to insignificant amounts. 22. Drainage improvements shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved Drainage Plan, prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated May 17, 2004. 23. All grading, cutting and filling shall be consistent with the approved plans, and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the project. 24. The project shall comply with the Erosion Control Plans submitted for the project, and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The contractor and property owner shall be fully responsible to ensure than no storm water run-off adversely impacts and/or causes erosion on adjoining properties. 25. All street frontage, drainage improvement, and other standard conditions of the Department of Public Works shall be completed on a timeline established by the City Engineer. Air Quality Conditions 26. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall include a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. 27. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. 28. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 29. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 30. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 31. The project contractor and property owner shall be fully responsible for ensuring that dust generated from site preparation and earth moving operations does not adversely impact neighboring property owners and their homes. Failure to comply with this condition could cause a STOP WORK ORDER being issued on the project. Trees and Landscapin.q Conditions 32. All existing trees on the subject property shall be retained unless a professional arborist submits a report to the Director of Planning and Community Development indicating that specific trees are dead or diseased. For every one tree removed, two new trees shall be planted in the same general location. 33. Prior to pruning or removing any limbs from the existing trees along the northern property line or on trees located on the adjacent parcel with limbs hanging over the subject property, the applicant shall submit a report from a professional arborist indicating that the proposed pruning and removal of limbs will not harm the long term viability of the trees. All pruning and limb removal work shall be performed by a registered or licensed arborist. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final Landscaping Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee. The Final Landscaping Plan shall include native trees and/or shrubs along the north property line intended to help soften and screen the proposed residence and other components of development from the residents to the north. All required landscaping shall be planted prior to final inspection, and shall be maintained in a viable condition to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 35. All exposed soil areas on the subject property shall be seeded with native grasses/shrubs/plants to eliminate the visual impact resulting from earth cuts and exposed soils. Cultural Resource Conditions 36. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if necessary. Special Conditions 37. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall locate the proposed residence a minimum of 10-feet from the side property lines. 38. The contractor and property owner shall construct the building a minimum of 10-feet from both side property lines as approved herein and shown in Attachment No. 2-7. 10 39. Prior to the pouring of concrete for the building foundation, the applicant or contractor shall call for an inspection and measurement of the side yard setback distances. The Building Inspector and/or Planning Staff shall measure the side yard setbacks to ensure the required 10-feet for each side yard has been complied with. 40. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan showing the location and type of all outdoor lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be designed and constructed to avoid spilling on adjoining properties and pointing towards the night sky. Fire Department Conditions: 41. All standard conditions imposed by the Fire Department, as discussed in the Project Review Committee Meeting for the subject project shall be completed prior to final inspection. Construction Season Condition: 42. All grading and other site preparation activities on the site should be limited to the periods between Apdl 1 and October 15 of any year. Short-term grading and site preparation activities may be permitted during this period provided the City Engineer determines that the subject property is dry enough to permit such activities and that such activities will not extend into anticipated wet weather periods. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Support the Planning Commission's action and deny the appeal filed by Mr. Fred Bellows and Ms. Catherine Indermill. 11 October 4, 2004 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, California 95482 Attention: City Clerk Re: Notice of Appeal Major Use Permit and Variance Graeber No. 04-03 We hereby request and appeal to the City Council with respect to the above use permit and variance which was approved by the Ukiah City Planning Commission. The Mayor and council members were previously furnished with a written response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration along with enclosures. We request that this document be included in this appeal process. This appeal is based on the following facts: PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS IN HIILLSIDE ZONING Section 9136 of the Hillside Zoning statute lists the yard and building site requirements. Mr. Stump's staff report to the Planning Commission date 9-22-2004 indicates that the site totals approximately 16,500 square feet in'area and has aa unusually narrow width of 60-feet. That would put the lot in H-3 with a site area greater that 15,000 square feet. The lot minimum width is 100 feet with yard setback minimums of Front 35 feet, sides 15 feet and the rear 35 feet. This project does not comply with the front and side setback requirements. Section 9139 set the standards for Hillside.Development Standards. According to the Kootz survey report this lot has an average ground gradient of 19.5%. Fifty percent of the lot must be kept in Natural State and section two states "Setbacks: Minimum thirty feet (30') from all property lines, and thirty feet (30) from ridge top or toe of slope for gradient in excess of fifteen percent (15%)." STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION- GRAEBER MAJOR USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 On page one and six Mr. Stump refers to "lower hillside zoning district". The City of Ukiah only has a Hillside Zoning District with no lower designation. The lot is in the lower portion, area etc. of the Hillside Zoning. Page five under the Side Yard Setbacks indicates that the average lot width in the area is 11 O-feet wide. That the parcel is physically unique and how much relief from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement is warranted? The first plan was to allow a six foot setback on the north property line which is the Bellows/Indermill property and 14 feet on the south property line which is owned at this time by the applicant Graeber. A 6-foot Attachment # / -'/ setback for a residence in the area "appears to be out of character, and therefore potentially a grant of special privilege." The review of air photographs of the area indicates that the setbacks appear to be approximately 1 O-feet from the side property lines. This is simply not mae. The setback from the Bellows/Indermill residence on the south is a minimum of 25-feet as indicated on the original plot map submitted with the plans to build the residence and is enclosed. The setback with the Mannon property from our carport indicates a minimum or 15-feet. In measuring this it appears to be closer to 14-feet. On page six under FINDINGS: subparagraph three Mr. Stump indicates that "the immediate parcel to the north, as well as the small residence on the adjoining parcel to the south has 1 O-foot side yard setbacks." This is just not mae and does not represent the neighborhood setbacks in question. HYDROLOGHY & HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS We were unable to meet with City Engineer Tim Erickson until Tuesday September 21, 2004 and day before the hearing date for the planning commission due to his vacation schedule. Also in this meeting was associate planner Dave Lohse. The reason for this meeting was a concern over the report and specifically the plot map on page four. I (Bellows) had been involved in a rather large hydrology project that involved several State agencies and Franz Engineering. Basically Mr. Erickson indicated that all appeared proper as the City of Ukiah only requires an engineering stamp and that releases the City of Ukiah from all liability issues should anything happen down the road. We asked Mr. Erickson if the could give us his professional opinion as to the plot map which appeared to be rather substandard in this day of computers, CAD design, etc. His response was very negative but refused to put it writing or appear before the Planning Commission to express his opinion. We had Ron Fmnz Engineering review the report and he come to the same conclusion of substandard work. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT There was one area of concern on this report with regard to the foundation depth. Mr. Erickson indicated that soils engineering is a sub-specialty and requires addition licensing from the State of California which he does not posses. On page two it indicates "The proposed house can be supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of strip footings and spread footings." Page four further indicates "Footings should extend at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. However, in the front or east side of the house as well as the garage, the footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All footings should be at least 12 inches wide." This is apparently a standard foundation. In 1999 Bellows/Indermil! retained Axt & Mitchell as architects for a small room addition on the east side of the residence. Rau and Associates Inc. were retained as engineers for the foundation as they had done some retrofitting on the original foundation and were familiar with the residence. You will note on the middle of page one under Affachrnent # / '- scope of work it states "The soils related problems most likely have been due to a combination of soil creep and expansive soils near the surface. For this reason, all new foundations must be founded at least 36 inches below the existing ground surface." We inquired as to Mr. Erickson concerning this difference in foundation depth as we are only taking about thirty five feet in distance of the two foundations. He indicated that the soils report appears to be adequate and has an engineer stamp and this releases the City of Ukiah from all liability. He did indicate that George Rau and Associates does have more experience in the Ukiah western hillside soils than any other engineering firm. DISCUSSION The setback requirements are specifically stated in the Hillside Ordinance. Six feet to the north and fourteen for the south were the original plans. Would this constitute a special privilege? The answer is yes. However, ten foot setbacks on each side would not constitute special privilege? The answer is still yes and to total setback footage it is still twenty feet. There has been no objection from the property owner at 300 S. Highland Ave. as to the setback requirements or variance requested. The applicant owns that property ...... Please do not get caught up in the Myszka Highland Estates which is down the block and around the comer from this. project. Two houses have a ten foot setback and the rest are much greater. This is a situation of not comparing apples to apples. These lots are much wider than the lot in question. Last but not least is the position of the Planning Staff thaf four.feet will absolve this entire question of special privilege. It does not and we would reqUest that you pay particular attention to the setbacks in the area and positioning of the residences so they do not intrude on each neighbor. This even holds true in the Myszka subdivision. A variance is a difference between what is expected and what actually occurs. The expected is a 30-foot setback from all property lines. What is actually occurring here is a 200 percent reduction request for what is expected. So does this constitute special privilege? The engineering reports and investigation will be accepted as they have the proper stamp of approval from a registered engineer. If this is the process then one only needs to buy their way through the Building/Planning Departments and the Planning Commission. One of the Planning Commissioners voted against this project as the project was too large for the lot. We would request that you reject this Major use Permit and Variance as it does not conform to Hillside Zoning. We are supposed to be protecting the delicate areas in the western hillsides and this does not accomplish this objective. Cordially, Fred A. Bellows Catherine IndermiJ1 Attachment # Encl: Original Plot Map 280 S. Highland Ave Rau and Associates Inc. October 27, 1999 Attachment # GEORGE C. RAU WALTER HAYDON ¥~CE PRESIDENT ROGER VINCENT Vu. CE PRESIDENT AND ASSOCIATES INC. CLIENT COPy CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS AG. REEMENT FOR SERVICES DATE: October 27, 1999 JOB NO.: 99-189 PROJECT NAME: Addition to Bellows House pROjECT MANAGER: Roger H. Vincent LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 280 Highland Avenue APN' 001-241-07 OWNER OF RECORD: Fred A. Bellows; Catherine Indermill ORDERED BY: Fred Bellows FOR THE ACCOUNT OF: Client: Address: City, State: Telephone: Type of Accouter: Fred A. BelloWs and Catherine lndermill 280 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 707-468-8424 Individual NOTE: In order for this Agreement to be valid it must be signed and dated and delivered to the offices of Rau and Associates, Inc. within 30 days of the date that it was signed by the representative of Rau and Associates, Inc. At the time it is returned as noted above, it becomes a legal, valid and binding Agreement. If the Agreement is returned after 30 days, it may be accepted, however Rau and Associates reserves the right to change the terms. If the terms are changed it will be returned to the Client for Client's review and signature· SCOPE OF WORK ORDERED: Rau and Associates, Inc., also referred to herein as "RAu", will provide the following services for Fred A. Bellows and Catherine Indermill, herein also referred to as "Client". Rau will review the plans to be prepared by Axt & Mitchell and prepare structural calculations for the proposed addition at the southeast corner of Client's home. After the calculations are complete, RAU will mark up a set of prints provided by the.Client's architect so that the plans can be revised to reflect the calculations. Due to the small scale of this project, it is RAU's understanding that the Client does not wish to have a soils investigation performed. RAU is familiar with this site and the associated problems that have - =- "-------='-'l~ ~ --~ ......... =---- -~' ...................... , ........ · ~~. Foundati0i¥'~f~sign in the calculations will be based on an allowable --~{-sure of 1000 psf as per the 1997 Uniform Building Code. By signing this Agreement for Services, the Client agrees to hold RAU harmless from any claims of damage from past or proposed work due to soils related problems. SCHEDULE OF WORK: RAU realizes that the timely performance of the services provided is an important element of this Agreement. RAU will endeavor to complete the work with due and reasonable diligence consistent with sound professional practice and within the time-frame noted below. RAU and the Client agree to cooperate with each other in every way on the project and to solicit the cooperation of other parties who may influence the schedule of the work. Attachment # / GRAEBER PARCEL 290 Highland Avenue M'r'SzKA HIGHLANDS ESTATES CLAY STREET Attachment # APN 001-241-09 04-03: GRAEBER 00124108 ~-- ~ Feet 0 15 30 60 90 120 1 inch equals 60 feet Attachment # C'I~AY ST.. . , , ', Attachment # nt# Affach~ it # j~ I I I -il '1 I ,ment# ~'-7 · .. City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission Graeber Major Use Permit and Variance ITEM NO. 8 Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 SUMMARY: Mr. Fred Graeber, owner of the vacant parcel of land located at 290 Highland Avenue is proposing to construct a 2,543 square foot 15 to 22-foot high craftsman style single family residence on the site. Due to the narrow 60-foot width of the parcel, as well as the large yard setback requirements of the hillside zoning district, Mr. Graeber is proposing to locate the house closer to the property lines than typically allowed on steep property. Accordingly, in addition to the required Use Permit for construction in the hillside zoning district, yard setback variances are being sought for the project. Approval of the project as proposed would allow the residence to be located 20-feet from Highland Avenue rather than the required 30-feet. The applicant seeks this relief to reduce grading and site disruption on this steep parcel, and to reduce its impact on the residents to the north. He is also proposing to locate it 6-feet from the north side property line rather the required 30-feet to facilitate the use of a curved driveway and avoid backing onto Highland Avenue. Finally, he is proposing to locate the residence 14-feet from the south side property line rather than the required 30-feet. Mr. Graeber believes that these proposed yard setbacks are warranted because the lot is only 60-feet wide, and the hillside zoning district requires 30-foot yard setbacks for property with an average slope of 15 percent. Strict adherence to these yard setback requirements would render this unusually narrow 60-foot wide legal lot of record undevelopable. The applicant submitted both a Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Engineering to explain the geology and soils of the site. The civil engineering firm working with the applicant is Mendocino Engineering, and Mr. Fred Turri prepared the Landscaping Plan. KPFF Consulting Engineers prepared an engineered Drainage Plan for the project. The discretionary actions associated with this project are quasi-judicial in nature; therefore each Planning Commissioner must physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove, or modify the project. THE PROJECT SITE: The project site is located on the edge of the lower hillside zoning district in west Ukiah. The site totals approximately 16,500 square feet in area and has an unusually narrow width of 60-feet. The site has a "bowl" shape to it and is steeper on its western portion. While the overall average slope of the parcel exceeds 15 percent, the proposed building site is considerably less steep as the contours on the Site Plan (Attachment No. 1)indicate. The subject parcel is 60-feet wide, which is unusually narrow when compared to other lower hillside zoning district parcels in the area. The hillside parcels to the north that front Highland Avenue have an average width of approximately 110-feet; with the smallest being 80-feet (see Attachment No. 2). The soils on the site are relatively uniform as the soil testing and geotechnical investigation revealed. The geology and soils on the site are similar to surrounding developed parcels, and are adequate for the proposed development project. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment # The project site taken from the intersection of Highland Avenue and Clay street" ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project to determine if it would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. The submitted Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report were used to understand and reach conclusions about the geology and soils on the property, the Engineered Drainage Plan was used to evaluate potential drainage impacts, and a wide variety of in-house resources were used to address other required environmental topics. Based on this Initial Study, Staff concluded that the project did have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on geology and soils if the recommendations of the geotechnical/soils engineer were not implemented. In addition, it was concluded that significant air quality (dust) impacts would result unless measures were employed to control dust during site preparation and construction activities. It was also determined that night lighting from the proposed residence could adversely impact neighboring property owners if lighting fixtures were not directed away from adjoining properties and the night sky. Staff was able to identify reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to successfully off-set these potentially significant adverse impacts to levels of insignificance. The mitigation measures require the site preparation, grading, and construction activities to strictly adhere to the recommendations of the geotechnical/soils engineer; that a number of control measures be used to control dust during grading operations; and that a final Landscaping and Lighting Plan be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Accordingly, Staff was able to conclude that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project. RECOMMENDATION: After the conduct of a public hearing, move to 1) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2) conditionally approve the Variance and Use Permit. Staff is recommending that the variance be approved for the 20-foot front yard setback as proposed, and for 10-foot side yard setbacks rather then the proposed 6-feet and 14-feet. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment PROJECT ISSUES AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: During the processing of the proposed project, a number of issues were identified by Staff and by concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. These issues included drainage, a suspect soils investigation, the invasion of privacy, and the "undevelopability" of the subject parcel. Drainage: Concern was expressed by a neighboring property owner that the drainage plans for the site were inadequate and that the proposed drainage improvements would not properly handle the run-off from the site without impacting nearby properties along Highland Avenue and Clay Street. As indicated in the Project Summary section of this Staff Report, the applicants were required to submit a Drainage Plan, which was submitted in June 2004. This comprehensive plan was prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The focus of the plan is to intercept and collect storm water run-off above the building site and route it away from the neighboring property to the north and the proposed residence, and into the storm drainage system along Highland Avenue. Numerous catch basins, valley gutters, and residential gutters/downspouts are proposed to accomplish this important task. The City Civil Engineers in the Public Works Department have reviewed the proposed Drainage Plan and visited the site to confirm its conclusions, and have concluded that it represents standard engineering practices, is adequate, and will ensure the proper collection and disbursement of storm water run-off. On September 13, 2004, concerned neighbors met with Public Works Staff, reviewed the engineered Drainage Plan, and it appears that the majority of their concerns were satisfied. Soils Investiqation: Concern was expressed by neighboring property owners that no soil test pits were dug in the "direct area of foundation planning", and therefore the soil testing method was inadequate. Review of the technical studies prepared for the project revealed that the professional Geotechnical Engineer conducted standard and routine soil tests for the proposed project. The location of the three test pits were strategically located to provide the engineer with an idea of the soil conditions on the entire site and immediate area. It is important for the engineer to have an understanding of the soil conditions of the approximate home site, as well as other areas of the parcel. The second test pit was dug approximately 15-feet from the location of the home site considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is noted that the applicants have recently submitted a modified Site Plan to shift the location of the house 10-feet closer to Highland Avenue, which places it approximately 5-feet from test pit number 2. All three test pits revealed similar soil conditions, which according to the engineer is common for this area, and was expected. The geotechnical engineer found these soil conditions to be adequate for foundation support for the proposed structure. Furthermore, the engineer stated in a conversation with Staff on September 8, 2004, that it is common engineering practice not to excavate soil test pits under where foundations are proposed, but rather in close proximity. This is to avoid placing a foundation on top of an area that has been rendered loose and uncompacted. Staff is able to conclude that the geotechnical and soils investigative work were performed according to standard engineering practices, and that the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report were prepared by a registered professional geotechnical engineer. We are able to conclude further that the geotechnical engineer concluded, based on his site observations, subsurface investigation, and understanding of the proposed project, that the subsurface soil on the site will provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structure. Invasion of Privacy: Mr. Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill, owners of the property adjacent to the north, have expressed concern that the location of the proposed residence will significantly invade their privacy. They are concerned that the proposed 6-foot side yard setback places the house too close to theirs, and that the close proximity would impact their privacy and the livability of their property. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment The proposed residence is situated approximately 30-feet in distance and at approximately 10-feet below the bellows/indermill residence in elevation. While Staff does not necessarily agree that a significant invasion of privacy will result from the proposed location of the Graeber house, it is apparent that the 6-foot side yard setback is out of character with the side yard setbacks of developed hillside properties in the immediate area. Staff believes that the proposed residence could be more centrally located on the site, which would provide two 10-foot side yard setbacks, and still accommodate the curved driveway (see discussion of the Variance below). This would involve shifting the residence 4-feet to the south, and result in a side yard setback more compatible with existing developed hillside parcels in the area. The approximate location of the property line between the Graeber and Bellows properties. The arrows are pointing to the Bellows Residence and new garage under construction. (Picture taken from Highland Avenue) Developability of the Parcel: Concern has been expressed regarding the developability of the subject property. Statements have been made that because the parcel is narrow and the required yard setbacks large, the parcel cannot and should not be developed. The Ukiah City Code allows a property owner to pursue a variance for deviating from development standards, and if successful may develop the property accordingly. Odd shaped, small or narrow lots such as the subject property, which are surrounded by larger parcels governed by the same zoning classification are candidates for variances and can be approved provided all the required findings can be made. In other words, if a small narrow legal parcel of record surrounded by larger parcels with the same zoning designation is essentially "unbuildable" with any structure because of the yard setback requirements, it would be a candidate for variance relief. The applicant has applied for the required variance for side and front yard setback relief. A discussion of the Variance request is provided below. DISCUSSION OF YARD SETBACK VARIANCES: As described above, the subject property is 60-feet wide and burdened with 30-foot side, rear, and front yard setback requirements. Strict adherence to the 30-foot side yard setback requirements would render the parcel undevelopable, and perhaps place the City is a questionable legal position. The following text discusses the front and side yard setback issues. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment # Front Yard: Mr. Graeber is proposing a 20-foot front yard setback, where 30-feet are required. The purpose of moving the proposed residence closer to the Highland Avenue right-of-way is to reduce the amount of cutting and grading to prepare the site for construction. The closer you come to Highland Avenue from the rear of the subject property, the more level it gets. The "bowl" shape, narrowness, and steepness appear to constitute special circumstances in terms of the physical features of the parcel. Review of properties in the area reveals many single family residences located approximately 20-feet from the right-of-way. These residences include the cottage to the south at 300 Highland Avenue and the Wildberger home at the corner of Clay Street and Highland Avenue. In addition, there are existing or approved garage structures with a 20-foot front yard setback. These include the garage (with living space above) at 240 Highland Avenue, and the garage recently approved and under construction on the Bellows/Indermill property adjacent to the north. Based on the location of these structures, it appears that granting the front yard variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Staff is unable to identify any detrimental impacts to surrounding property owners that would result from the structure being 20-feet from the Highland Avenue right-of-way, rather than the normally required 30-feet. As indicated above, there are residences and accessory structures in the area that are located 20-feet from the street. This is not necessarily surprising, because the standard for many years up until the late 1990's was a 20-foot front yard setback for the R-1 (single family residential) zoning district. The proposed structure would not "loom" over other property, block solar exposure, or result in other detrimental impacts. Side Yard Setbacks: As indicated above, if the 30-foot side yard setback requirements in strictly adhered to on the 60-foot wide parcel, there would be no space for any structures. This standard, as applied to neighboring parcels under the same zoning classification does not present this constraint to development, because they are average 110-feet in width, and none are less than 80-feet in width. This unusually narrow width appears to constitute a unique special circumstance applicable to the subject lot and not others in the immediate hillside area. If it is concluded that the parcel is physically unique, the next questions is how much relief from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement is warranted? Would the approval of 6-foot and 14-foot side yard setbacks constitute a grant of special privilege? Review of the air photographs of the area, as well as field surveys reveal that portions of the residences on the parcels to the south and north both appear to be setback approximately 10-feet from the side yard property lines. It appears that the Bellows attached garage has a side yard setback of approximately 10-feet against the property line it shares with the Mannon property to the west. Similarly, the cottage on the adjoining parcel to south appears to have a similar sized side yard setback from the property line it shares with the subject parcel. Accordingly, a 6-foot side yard setback for a residence in the area appears to be out of character, and therefore potentially a grant of special privilege. An alternative approach would be to issue a conditional variance to avoid the grant of special privilege. This condition would require the two side yard setbacks to be 10-feet, rather than 6 and 14-feet (see Attachment No. 3: Comparison Illustration - 6-foot vs. 10-foot side yard setbacks). Constructing the residence with 10-foot rather than 6-foot side yard setbacks would shorten the approach into the garage from the driveway, but it does not preclude an adequate turning radius, nor does it disrupt the backing-up and turnaround movement for vehicles exiting the garage and leaving the property. DISCUSSION OF USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENCE: The Use Permit is required because the hillside zoning district requires one for all construction on parcels width an average slope of 15 percent or greater. The purpose of this discretionary review process is to thoroughly review the proposal, evaluate the environmental conditions of the site, and ensure that the project will not have an adverse impact on the public's health, safety, and general welfare. In this case, the project has been thoroughly reviewed, required technical information has been submitted and found acceptable, the required environmental analysis has been completed, and no significant detrimental impacts have been identified. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Attachment # .,~ - ~- 5 Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 CONCLUSION: The project is an infill single family residential development on a narrow steep "bowl-shaped" parcel in the lower hillside zoning district. All utilities are readily available, the site has been thoroughly examined by geotechnical and civil engineers, and the building designer has created a craftsman style streamlined design that steps down the hillside with a height ranging from 15-feet to 22-feet. The applicants are proposing to place the proposed residence closer to the side yard property lines that normally permitted in the hillside area, because the parcel is uniquely narrow. They also want to locate it closer to the front property line in an effort to reduce the cutting and grading on the site by roughly a third. After reviewing the application materials, conducting site visits, analyzing the neighborhood, and discussing issues with the applicant and concerned neighbors, it has become apparent that the findings for the proposed front yard setback seem achievable, while the findings for the proposed side yard setbacks do not. However, based on the character of the neighborhood, and more importantly, the proximity of some existing single family residences to side property lines, Staff is able to conclude that the findings can be made to grant relief that would allow 10-foot side yard setbacks for the proposed residence. Staff is also able to conclude that the proposed residence with the variance as conditioned, would not have a significant adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the surround property owners and general public, and therefore is recommending conditional approval of the Use Permit. FINDINGS: Sideyard Setback Variance: . The 60-foot width of the subject property is uniquely narrow when compared to nearby properties in the hillside zoning district because the other parcels average 110-feet in width, with the smallest being 80- feet in width. This represents a special circumstance applicable to the subject property, which deprives it of privileges enjoyed by other nearby properties with the same zoning classification. These privileges include building a structure on the subject parcel without the need for relief from the side yard setback requirements. . The strict application of the 30-foot side yard setback requirement would render the 60-foot wide property unbuildable, which is not the case for surrounding properties which are wider and can be reasonably developed according to the side yard setback requirements. . The issuance of a Variance for a six-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because no other nearby residences in the hillside area are developed with 6-foot side yard setbacks. However, the issuance of a Variance for a ten-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because the immediate parcel to the north, as well as the small residence on the adjoining parcel to the south have 10-foot side yard setbacks. . The issuance of a Variance for a six-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would be detrimental to the adjoining property owner to the north because it would be situated extremely close to the neighbor's driveway, and the structure would impose on the outdoor living area and the ability for the neighbors to enjoy their properties by creating a congested and compact built environment inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A 10-foot wide side yard setback would provide space necessary to reduce building congestion and the imposing presence of the proposed residence on the neighbor to the north. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Attc:chmenf # ~,~ '- ~:~ 6 Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Front Yard Setback: . . , , The "bowl" shape of the parcel, very steep rear yard, as well as the way it levels off just before Highland Avenue represents unique topography and a special circumstance when compared with surrounding properties, which are generally steep all the way up to Highland Avenue. This unique topographic circumstance creates a natural building envelope closer to the front portion of the site, which eliminates the deeper cutting, excavation and overall grading that would be required for a 30-foot front yard setback. Other developed parcels in the immediate hillside zoning district have front yard setbacks of approximately 20-feet. These properties include APN 001-241-10 and APN 001-201-05, and therefore the granting of a Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The granting of a Variance for a 20-foot front yard setback would result in approximately a 1/3 reduction in the amount of cutting, excavating and grading associated with the project, which would reduce potential detriment to surrounding property owners by reducing dust, noise, and the overall amount of construction time. The granting of a Variance for a 20-foot front yard setback would reduce nuisance level impacts to the property owner to the north by locating the garage roof deck further to the east and away from the outdoor living area of the neighbor. Use Permit Findinqs: 12. The proposed project, as conditioned would not have an adverse impact on the health, safety, or general welfare of surrounding property owners or the general public for the following reasons. The geology, soils, and hydrology of the site have been examined by licensed professionals, found adequate for the proposed development project, and their conclusions and findings have been confirmed by the City Engineer. The additional required 4-feet of side yard setback beyond the 6-feet proposed by the applicant provides the space necessary to reduce building congestion and the imposing presence of the proposed residence on the neighbor to the north, and results in the subject development being in substantial conformance with at least one of the side yard setbacks of adjacent parcels to both the south and north. · The 15-foot to 22-foot high craftsman style residence has been designed to conform to, and "step-down" the topographic of the site, and is compatible with the surrounding architecture of existing residences. The proposed project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan because it represents an infill housing development that as mitigated, does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and is not out of character with the style and way surrounding residential properties are developed. CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL: The following conditions of project approval shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or within the timeframe stipulated by the condition: General Conditions , The Plans submitted for a Building Permit and all subsequent construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved and modified (side yard setbacks) herein, labeled Exhibit "A" in the Graeber Use Permit 04-03 / Variance 04-40, on file with the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Affochmenf # .,~ -' ~) Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 . , . , , , . . 10. All road and infrastructure construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah, except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the City Council. No site preparation or construction/improvements (road, grading, drainage, utilities, etc.) shall be performed without the approval of a Site Improvement/Grading Permit from the Department of Public Works. The Plans submitted for a Site Improvement/Grading Permit shall include a Final Erosion Control Plan. The applicants shall obtain any permit or approval which is required by law, regulation, or Ordinance, required by local, State, or Federal agency. All road/driveway paving shall be a minimum of 2" (inches) of asphalt concrete with a 6" (inch) aggregate base. In addition to any particular condition, which might be imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time a Building Permit is approved and issued. A Building Permit for the development shall be issued within two years after the effective date of the Use Permit, or the Use Permit shall be subject to the City's permit revocation process and procedures. In the event the Building Permit cannot be issued within the stipulated period from the project approval date, a one year extension may be granted by the Director of Planning if no new circumstances affect the project which otherwise would render the original approval inappropriate or illegal. It is the applicant's responsibility in such cases to propose the one-year extension to the Planning Department prior to the two-year expiration date. The approved Use Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established land use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty four (24) consecutive months. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Use Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Use Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. A list of the conditions of project approval shall be included as a plan sheet with the construction drawings submitted for a Building Permit. Soils/Geotechnical Conditions 11. Surface strippings shall not be used as fill except in landscape areas. 12. Prior to placing any fill material, it shall be inspected and approved by a soils engineer, and the report shall be submitted to the City Public Works department for review and approval. 13. All fill material shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Aftachment # 14. The fill used for the project shall not contain boulders over 12 inches in dimension and not more than 15% of the fill shall consist of cobbles or boulders larger than 6 inches. All boulders must be removed from the site or stored on-site at a location approved by the project engineer. This requirement may mean that some of the rock excavated from cuts cannot be used as engineered fill. 15. Fill placement shall be performed according to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated May 26, 2004. 16. Any fill placed on slopes steeper than 5H:IV shall be keyed into the existing slope in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. 17. The upper 12 inches of subgrade below the driveway/road shall be scarified and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. 18. All trench backfilling shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, dated May 26, 2004. 19. All grading work on the project site shall be routinely inspected by a professional/certified soil engineer. Field density tests must be taken during grading in order to evaluate the adequacy of the contractor's work. After grading is completed and the soil engineer has finished the observation of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except with the approval of and observation of the soil engineer in consultation with the City Public Works Department Staff. The contractor shall be responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded area and adjoining areas during construction. 20. All cut and fill slopes shall be mulched and seeded at the completion of construction to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. 21. Riprap shall be placed at both the entrances and outlets of all culverts to reduce erosion to insignificant amounts. 22. Drainage improvements shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved Drainage Plan, prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated May 17, 2004. 23. All grading, cutting and filling shall be consistent with the approved plans, and shall kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the project. 24. The project shall comply with the Erosion Control Plans submitted for the project, and shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The contractor and property owner shall be fully responsible to ensure than no storm water run-off adversely impacts and/or causes erosion on adjoining properties. 25. All street frontage, drainage improvement, and other standard conditions of the Department of Public Works shall be completed on a timeline established by the City Engineer. Air Quality Conditions 26. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment # 9 27. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. 28. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 29. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 30. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 31. The project contractor and property owner shall be fully responsible for ensuring that dust generated from site preparation and earth moving operations does not adversely impact neighboring property owners and their homes. Failure to comply with this condition could cause a STOP WORK ORDER being issued on the project. Trees and Landscaping Conditions 32. All existing trees on the subject property shall be retained unless a professional arborist submits a report to the Director of Planning and Community Development indicating that specific trees are dead or diseased. For every one tree removed, two new trees shall be planted in the same general location. 33. Prior to pruning or removing any limbs from the existing trees along the northern property line or on trees located on the adjacent parcel with limbs hanging over the subject property, the applicant shall submit a report from a professional arborist indicating that the proposed pruning and removal of limbs will not harm the long term viability of the trees. 34. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final Landscaping Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee. The Final Landscaping Plan shall include native trees and/or shrubs along the north property line intended to help soften and screen the proposed residence and other components of development from the residents to the north. All required landscaping shall be planted prior to final inspection, and shall be maintained in a viable condition to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 35. All exposed soil areas on the subject property shall be seeded with native grasses/shrubs/plants to eliminate the visual impact resulting from earth cuts and exposed soils. Cultural Resource Conditions 36. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are Unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if necessary. Special Conditions 37. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall locate the proposed residence a minimum of 10-feet from the side property lines. Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment # 10 38. The contractor and property owner shall construct the building a minimum of 10-feet from both side property lines as approved herein. 39. Prior to the pouring of concrete for the building foundation, the applicant or contractor shall call for an inspection and measurement of the side yard setback distances. The Building Inspector and/or Planning Staff shall measure the side yard setbacks to ensure the required 10-feet for each side yard has been complied with. 40. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan showing the location and type of all outdoor lighting. All outdoor lighting shall be designed and constructed to avoid spilling on adjoining properties and pointing towards the night sky. Fire Department Conditions: 41. All standard conditions imposed by the Fire Department, as discussed in the Project Review Committee Meeting for the subject project shall be completed prior to final inspection. ATTACHMENTS: . 2. 3. 4. 5. Site Plan, Elevation Drawing, and Conceptual Landscaping Plan Air Photo of the project site Assessor's parcel map showing neighborhood parcels Comparison Illustration: 6-foot vs. 10-foot side yard setbacks Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, Comment letters, and Responses to Comments (Commission only) ~~n~~ PcT?m me~utn~y ~e ' o p m e nt Fred Graeber Use Permit and Variance Planning Commission Staff Report September 22, 2004 Attachment# CITY OF UKIAH NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: APPLICANTS: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: July 29, 2004 Fred Graeber Major Use Permit No. 04-03 290 Highland Avenue, City of Ukiah, County of Mendocino (Assessor Parcel Number 001-241-09) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Major Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,543 square-foot Craftsman style single- family residence with a 3-car attached garage and associated landscaping. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SE'I-rING: The project site is located on the edge of the lower hillside area that makes up the west side of the City of Ukiah. These hills consist of different soils with widely varying degrees of slopes and a number of natural drainages, including two major blue line strea_ms that flow through the City and adjoining agricultural lands to the Russian River. The hills are covered with a wide variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses that provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. The project site is 290 Highland Ave., Assessor Parcel Number 002-241-03, and the environmental setting for this 0.38-acre site is a microcosm of the hillside areas described above. This particular parcel fronts Highland Ave. at an elevation of approximately 724 and extends to the west to an elevation of approximately 770 and slopes up to the west gently at the location of the proposed house site, and continues steeper to the westem property line. There are no significant drainage features on the site, and the surface drainage is mostly generated on-site and sheet drains to the east onto Highland Ave. The steeper westem portion of the lot contains Oak Trees, Madrones, and a Pine, and there is an, Apple Tree near the southem property line central to the property. There are some ;recently planted trees at the upper end near the western property line to provide screening from the west, and some fruit trees in the center of the lot. ~he ground is mostly covered with grass. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Potential impacts identified by Staff in this Initial Study consist of the following: 1. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 2. AIR QUALITY 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4. AESTHETICS, VISUAL QUALITY, AND LIGHT AND GLARE 5. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 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; Attachment #_ . , . . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals; The potentially significant impacts resulting from this project would be mitigated to levels that are not considered to be significant if the recommended mitigation measures are adopted; 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; and Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts that 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 the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Center, 3J)8-Ceminary Avenue ,,t.,Ikia _~alifor'nia. ,/a/re-~'mp, Planning Di~Ct'or/Environmental Coordinator This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Date INITIAL STUDY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CITY OF UKIAH I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Major Use Permit 04-03 2. Name of Project Proponent: Fred Graeber 3. Address of Project Proponent: 3600 Orr Sprin.qs Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 4. Project Location: 290 Hiqhland Ave. 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 002-241-03 6. Date of Initial Study Preparation: July 19, 2004 7. Name of Lead Agency: City of Ukiah 8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 / (707) 463-6200 9. Project Description: (See the detailed Project Description on pa.qe 2 of this Initial Study) 10. Plans, Exhibits, and other Submitted Application Materials: All the plans, exhibits, technical reports, and other submitted application materials are available for review at the City of Ukiah Plannin.q Department- 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah. A copy of the proposed .qradin.q, drainaqe, and erosion control plan and the Geotechnical and Geoloqical Feasibility Report for the project are included as attachments to this Initial Study. 11.Initial Study Prepared by: Ukiah Planning Department Staff ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE The project site is located on the edge of the lower hillside area that makes up the west side of the City of Ukiah. These hills consist of different soils with widely varying degrees of slopes and a number of natural drainages, including two major blueline streams that flow through the City and adjoining agricultural lands to the Russian River. The hills are covered with a wide variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses that provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. The project site is 290 Highland Ave., Assessor Parcel Number 002-241-03, and the environmental setting for this 0.38-acre site is a microcosm of the hillside areas described above. This particular parcel fronts Highland Ave. at an elevation of approximately 724 and extends to the west to an elevation of approximately 770 and slopes up to the west gently at the location of the proposed house site, and continues steeper to the western property line. There are no significant drainage features on the site, and the surface drainage is mostly generated on-site and sheet drains to the east onto Highland Ave. The steeper western portion of the lot contains Oak Trees, Madrones, and a Pine, and there is an Apple Tree near the southern property line central to the property. There are some recently planted trees at the upper end near the western property line to provide screening from the west, and some fruit trees in the center of the lot. The ground is mostly covered with grass. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a Major Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,543 square-foot Craftsman style single- family residence with a 3-car attached garage. The main living area of the house is single-stow, and the garage is beneath the great room and the deck at the eastern portion, thus the design "steps" the structure up the hill. The exterior materials consist of a combination of stone veneer, Hardiplank horizontal lap siding, and cedar shingles as an accent in the gable ends. The property would be accessed via a shared driveway with the property to the south, and steps up to the main entry door. Utilities for the proposed house are available at Highland Avenue. The grading and drainage plan for the proposed residence includes diverting the surface drainage around the house site and collecting it in drainage structures that will flow to the City's storm sewer system. The grading plan for the home shows a cut slope on the up slope to the west of the house. The cut slope and the construction of the proposed building will require the removal of isolated trees and other vegetation, but the vegetation plan submitted by the applicant preserves larger stands of oaks and other trees. In addition, the proposed landscaping surrounding the house includes both exotic and native plants, as well as a mix of deciduous and evergreen species. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS After careful review of the project it has been determined that the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment. However, a detailed and comprehensive mitigation program has been developed that will successfully mitigate the impacts to levels of insignificance. There is substantial evidence in the administrative record that supports this determination, including the facts contained in the technical studies prepared by qualified professionals. This determination is made with full knowledge that the project site is situated near an area of slope instability and potential erosion. However, the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report prepared for the project shows that this is not a threat to the property. The comprehensive mitigation program prepared for this project is designed to prevent slope instability on the subject property, soil erosion, air-borne dust, and disruption of historical/cultural resources. In addition, the program is designed to prevent lighting from shining onto neighboring properties and toward the night sky, thus preserving night time views in the area. Accordinqly, it has been determined that the proposed proiect, as mitiqated, will not violate any of the siqnificance criteria, and therefore a Mitiqated Neqative Declaration is appropriate for the project. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY A. Settinq: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. According to resource materials maintained by the Ukiah Planning Department, the projected maximum credible earthquake along this fault would be approximately 7.4 magnitude on the Richter scale. According to the Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County Southwestern Part published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the subject property is underlain by Lookout Peak Graywacke (LPgw) bedrock, which is composed primarily of sandstone and shale, and has very little diversity. The Soil Survey cited above also indicates that the predominant soil type in the vicinity of the subject property is Hopland-Wohly Loam, which occur on moderate to steep slopes. This soil type is described as moderately deep and well drained, and runoff is rapid, causing a high hazard for erosion. Steep slopes exhibit erosion gullies, and landslides are not uncommon. B. Significance Criteria: A significant geologic impact would occur ifa project exposed people or structures to major geologic features that pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life, or hazards such as earthquake damage (rupture, groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides), slope and/or foundation instability, erosion, soil instability, or other problems of a geologic nature that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques. C. Submitted Soils and Geotechnical Reports: Pursuant to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC), the applicants for the Graeber Use Permit submitted a Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report for the proposed residence. This report, prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers, confirms the LPgw bedrock underneath the site, and indicates that soils above the bedrock are greater than three (3) feet in depth, with depth to water table greater than six (6) feet. The report also identifies an existing geologic hazard (landslide) and drainages in the vicinity of the Graeber property, but that this landslide is in a different drainage area and does not pose a threat to the subject property. This report also indicates that no subsurface water, seepage, or springs were encountered during the fieldwork, and concludes that the subsurface materials at the site will provide adequate foundation support for the proposed residential structures. The report confirms that the subsurface conditions for the subject property would provide adequate foundation support for the proposed single-family residence on this parcel, while the Iow to moderate expansion potential of the surface soils may require foundations deeper than ordinarily required, which is a standard design procedure. In addition, the report states that the presence of weathered rock at a shallow depth indicates more than adequate support is available for strip and spread footings. This report provides an overview of the regional and site geology/soils, as well as basic information concerning the seismic conditions of the area. The report also concludes that the geologic hazards on the site are relatively common, and that techniques used to mitigate the hazards are well known and common in this particular area. Regarding seismic concerns, the report indicates that Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic safety are adequate to protect homes and future residents in the event of an earthquake. The Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report for the project discusses a debris flow located about 800 feet west of the Graeber property that reportedly occurred in 1986. This was originally a concern of Staff due to a report that this flow reached the Graeber property; however, the report refers to contrary reports of the incident, and explains that this debris flow does not threaten the Graeber property since it occurs in another drainage pattern. This study satisfied Staff's concerns regarding this debris flow. D. Impacts: Based on the geology report submitted for this project, Staff is able to conclude that while the project could potentially result in significant adverse impacts to area and site soils and geology, these impacts can be successfully mitigated. The potential impacts, as described in the technical studies, include soil erosion and slope and soil instability. The Engineering Geology Report prepared for the Graeber Use Permit indicates that the subject property is not situated in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, so there is no known earthquake fault that is capable of surface displacement running across the site. However, due to several nearby active faults, the site is designated within Seismic Zone 4 by the Uniform Building Code (1997 Edition), and may be subject to moderate to strong ground motion during the life of the project. However, the UBC requires a specific type of construction to safeguard future residences located in Zone 4 and no specific mitigation measures will be required for building construction. E. Miti.qation Measures: The submitted Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report for the project addresses various issues surrounding the construction of the proposed home regarding soil stability, erosion, etc. The Report recommends that these issues can be mitigated through standard design procedures and erosion control practices. It explains that often times slope instability occurs due to the grading of flat building pads with deep cuts and fills, but that the Graeber home is designed to step up the terrain without substantial grading, thus avoiding substantial disturbance to the soil. Other recommendations are included in the report for this project. The following mitigation measures ensure that the project will adhere to the recommendations in the report, to the erosion control plans submitted, and standard erosion control practices: 1. Surface strippings or other soils containing organic materials cannot be used as fill except in landscape areas. 2. The contractor shall be responsible to prevent erosion and water damage of the graded area and adjoining areas during construction. 3. All cut and fill slopes shall be mulched and seeded at the completion of construction to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director/City Engineer. . Plans submitted for Building Permits shall include geotechnical reports/soil investigations prepared by qualified engineering professionals. The investigations shall be based on the specific building plans for each site, and shall include recommendations to control erosion, and ensure that improvements are constructed to eliminate or substantially minimize soil constraints. 5. All grading, cutting and filling shall be consistent with the approved plans, and shall be kept to the minimum nece§sary to achieve the goals of the project. 6. The project shall comply with the erosion control plans submitted for the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. F. Impact Siqnificance After Mitiqation: Based upon the comprehensive nature of the recommended mitigation measures, staff is able to conclude that the project, as mitigated, will not cause significant impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity of the site and surrounding area. II. AIR QUALITY A. Settinq - Air Basin Characteristics: The concentration of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and sunshine. In Ukiah, the combined effects of moderate winds, clear skies, frequent atmospheric inversions that restrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts horizontal dilution, result in a relatively high potential for air pollution. The City of Ukiah is situated in the flat and narrow Ukiah Valley. The presence of the mountains on both the west and east sides of the valley create the terrain that tends to restrict the horizontal east-west movement of pollutants. The dominant wind direction in the Ukiah Valley is from the northwest to the southeast. Wind speeds in the central portion of the community are moderate, with wind speeds of 4 mph or less occurring over 60 percent of the time. While the potential for air pollution is high in the Ukiah Valley, the actual pollutant levels are relatively Iow due to the lack of upwind sources and the relatively Iow level of development in the local air basin. B, the Significance Criteria: Air Quality Impacts would be significant if the project results in any of following: · Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of any applicable Air Quality Plan; · Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or project air quality violation, including a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria for which the region is in nonattainment as defined by Federal or State regulations. For the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, the applicable daily thresholds for criteria pollutants would be significant if they exceed any of the following: · Reactive organic gases (ROG) 220 lbs. · Nitrogen oxides (Nox) 220 lbs. · Sulferoxides (Sox) 220 lbs. · Particulates (PM10) 80 lbs. · If carbon monoxide (CO) exceeds 550 lbs./day, dispersion modeling is recommended to determine the significance of the impact upon Federal or State standards. · Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or · Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. C. Air Quality Standards: The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six "criteria pollutants." These include photochemical ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. California then adopted its own Clean Air Act in 1977, creating separate and stricter air quality standards. Each standard is shown as a duration of time for which a specific contaminant level cannot exceed. The standards are designed to protect the public from health hazards, visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance, impacts to agricultural crops, and other forms of air quality damage. Table 1' Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Ozone Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide PM-10 Lead Average Time Federal Standard State Standard 1-hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM 8-hour 1-hour Annual 1-hour Annual 24-hour 1-hour Annual 24-hour 30-day Avg. Month Avg. 9.0 PPM 35.0 PPM 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM 0.14 PPM 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 9.0 PPM 20.0 PPM 0.25 PPM 0.05 PPM O.5 PPM 30 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 PPM = Parts per Million / ug/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter D. Violation of a State Standard: If a county (or a portion of a county located within an air basin) exceeds the State standard for any of the criteria pollutants, the State Air Resources Board (ARB) can designate it as non-attainment for that substance. To evaluate the exceedance, the ARB uses standard criteria found in the State Health and Safety Code. They review air-sampling data to determine the nature and extent of the exceedance, and they make a finding as to whether or not the exceedance was a highly irregular or infrequent event. If it is determined that the exceedance was an exceptional event caused by an act of nature or unusual human activity, it is deemed an exceedance and not a violation. Similarly, if the exceedance is an extreme concentration event (unusual meteorology) or an unusual concentration event (an anomalous exceedance which does not qualify as an exceptional event or extreme concentration event), is not regarded as a violation, the designation for the area does not change. The ARB will designate an area as attainment for a pollutant if the data show that the State standard for that pollutant was not violated during the previous three (3) years. Again, exceedances affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations and, therefore, are not considered in the area designation process. As a result, an area may have measured concentrations that exceed a State standard and still be designated as attainment. A District that becomes designated as nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide is required to develop a plan for attaining the State standard for that particular pollutant. The plan must be submitted to the State Air Resources Board (ARB) for review and approval. The ARB has indicated that an attainment plan, particularly one for multiple pollutants can be very expensive (Marcella Nystrom, ARB, personal communication, 1997). Another possible consequence of a nonattainment designation is the ability to levy fees under certain conditions. Nonattainment Districts are authorized to levy a fee of up to $4.00 on motor vehicles registered in the District for the purposes of California Clean Air Act implementation. E. Existinq Air Quality in Ukiah: The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) operates a monitoring site in Ukiah measuring concentrations of PM-10. Prior to August of 1988 the District also monitored several gaseous pollutants in Ukiah. In August of 1992, the District again established a multi-pollutant monitoring site in Ukiah for gaseous pollutants, which measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Air quality in Ukiah meets all Federal and State air quality standards with the exception of the State 24-hour PM-10 standard. This standard was exceeded on 3 days in 1990, 2 days in 1991, 0 days in 1992, 2days in 1993, and 1 day in 1994. Noexceedances have occurred since 1994. Sources of PM-10 include field burning, dust from unpaved roads and grading operations, combustion, and automobiles. 54 of the 58 counties in California are designated non-attainment for PM-10, which means that most of the California air basins exceed the permitted 24-hour concentration. The ARB does not require an Attainment Plan for jurisdictions that violate the PM-10 standard. Ozone is one of the most serious pollutants affecting the State, and 30 of the 58 counties are designated non-attainment. While Mendocino County is attainment for ozone, the Ukiah (East Gobbi Street) sampling station has shown a steady increase in the annual hours of ozone levels exceeding the 40, 50, and 60 parts per billion thresholds since 1993 (see Table 2). Additionally, the 80 ppb (State standard --- 90 ppb) threshold has been exceeded twice over the past 4 years. However, based upon 1993-1995 data, the ARB has assigned Ukiah an "Expected Peak Day Concentration" (EPDC) level of 74 ppb, which means that any values above 70 ppb would be excluded from the designation process as extreme concentrations (Marcella Nystrom, ARB, personal communication, 4124197). Regardless of the attainment designation and the EPDC status, ozone remains as the pollutant of primary concern to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. The major sources of ozone precursors are combustion sources such as, factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. Other State criteria pollutants measured in Mendocino County have routinely had maximum concentrations well below the applicable Federal or State standards. The only other pollutant of significant concern is Carbon Monoxide (CO). The local threshold for point source production of CO is 550 pounds per day. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas whose primary source is automobiles. Concentrations of CO measured in Mendocino County have never exceeded State or Federal standards, and current maximum concentrations measured in Ukiah are well below the applicable standards. Table 2:1994-97 Monthly Ozone Maximums Number of Hours 1994 1995 1996 1997 Number of hours exceeding 348 325 390 200 40 PPB Number of hours exceeding 121 119 142 60 5O PPB Number of hours exceeding 41 34 44 17 60 PPB Number of hours exceeding 70 PPB 6 7 7 1 Number of hours exceeding 2 2 0 0 80 PPB Number of hours exceeding 90 PPB (State 0 0 0 0 Standard) NOTE: 1) PPB = Parts Per Billion; 2) State Standard = 90 PPB; 3) Federal Standard = 120 PPB SOURCE: A Source of Air Quality Conditions Includinq Emissions Inventory, Ozone Formation, PIVI10 Generation, and Mitigation Measures for Mendocino County, CA; Sonoma Technologies, Inc., 1998. F. Project Characteristics in Relation to Air Quality: The project is expected to generate typical shod-term air quality impacts (PM-1 O/dust) during site preparation and grading activities. In addition, some vehicle emissions will be produced from heavy equipment, and ultimately from vehicles associated with the future residential use of the proposed parcel. G. Short-term Construction Related Air Quality Impacts: Construction activities create a wide range of emissions, ranging from exhaust from heavy equipment to the air bound organic gases from solvents, insulating materials, caulking materials, and "wet" pavement. However, while these emissions may contribute to the accumulation of substances that undergo the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone, they are not regarded as significant short-term impacts. Dust generated by equipment and vehicles used in construction of the building pad and roadway would cause the most substantial short-term construction-related air quality impacts. Fugitive dust is emitted both during site preparation, grading, and construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being dependent upon wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of construction activity and acreage affected by the construction activity. The highest potential for construction dust impacts typically occur during the late spring and summer, and early fall months when soils are dry. These small particulates are respirable particulates that can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease, and can alter lung function in children and the elderly when distributed in large enough concentrations. It can also rise into the lower troposphere and contribute to the production of ozone. Based on the project plans submitted for this project, it is estimated that area of earth that will be cleared for the building pad, driveway, and landscaping would be approximately three-quarters (.75) of an acre. While this is not a substantially large area, the site preparation activities required for this project could cause potentially significant levels of dust (PM-10) if exposed soils are left unattended. H. Mitigation Measures for Dust (PM10) Control: . All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. 8. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. . All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 10. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 11. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. I. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: Based upon the comprehensive nature of the recommended mitigation measures, staff is able to conclude that the project, as mitigated, will not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected violation of State PM-10 standards. 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: 10 A. Settinq: Three maior creeks flow through the City on their way to the Russian River, with adjacent areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as being potential subject to flooding events. Additionally, there are numerous Iow-lying areas within the City that are subject to short-term flooding during the winter months. Domestic water quality, as well as the quality of creek waters in the City is rated as very good. In the case of the Graeber Use Permit, and the subject property, water for fire protection is available at an existing hydrant at the Highlands Ave. frontage near the northern property line of the parcel, and sufficient water supply for the house and the required fire sprinkler system is available from the City water supply at Highland Ave. B. ,Si.qnificance Criteria: Significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would result from a project if water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were violated; groundwater and surface water quality and quantity were substantially altered; drainage patterns were substantially altered that would increase erosion/siltation and increase surface runoff; increase runoff that would exceed capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or add a substantial source of pollution; located on a 100-year floodplain; or expose people to hydrological hazards such as flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. C. Impacts: 1. Creeks and Water Quality: Review of project plans reveal that drainage from the site will be collected in drainage structures and routed to the City storm sewer system. The collection of this water will result in little potential for erosion. Staff from the Public Works/Engineering Department reviewed the Grading and Erosion Control Plan and determined that potential erosion from the proposed development would not reach significant levels if it is implemented fully. A Mitigation Measure is recommended that will ensure implementation of the Erosion Control Plan. 2. Flood Hazards: The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency reveal that the subject property is situated in Zone "C", which is outside the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Civil Engineer in the City of Ukiah Public Works Department reviewed the project, and determined that the City storm sewer system will accommodate the drainage water from the property, and therefore will not pose a flooding threat to properties below the subject property. Based on the hydrologic information, Staff concludes that the proposed project would not be subject to short or long-term flooding events, nor would it cause flooding hazards downslope. 3. Water Quality Standards: Domestic water is available for the proposed house through the public City water system at Highland Ave. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would cause a violation of any water quality standard, or have an adverse impact on the domestic water quality of future owners of the proposed parcels or the property owners below the site. 4. Groundwater Supply and Recharge: Since most of the runoff water from this property presently drains to the public right-of-way and eventually the public storm sewer system, it is not anticipated that the development of a single-family residence on the subject property would have a significant adverse impact on groundwater supplies or the ability for the water table to recharge. 5. Wastewater: The house will be connected to the City sewer system at Highland Ave. While the city sewer system is nearing capacity, it is anticipated that a hookup to the system will be available to serve the proposed home. D. Mitigation Measure for the Control of Erosion 12. The project shall comply with the erosion control plans included with the submitted application materials, subject to modifications required by the City Engineer that will ensure adequate erosion control, and shall include, but not be limited to the following: 13. A description of all erosion and sediment control measures necessary to adequately control erosion along the roadway, driveways, homesites, and all other areas disturbed as a result of the project. 14. Seeding mixtures and rates, types of sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer application, and the kind and quantity of mulching for both temporary and permanent vegetation control measures. 15. Any other elements required by local, State, or Federal law. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation Based on standard engineering practices, it is concluded that a comprehensive Erosion Control Plan found acceptable by the City Engineer will successfully reduce all potential erosion related impacts to levels of insignificance. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE: A. Settin_q: The site borders Highland Avenue at the lower edge of the Hillside Zone. The proposed location for the house is near Highland Avenue, with much of the site preserved where it begins to slope up onto the hillside. This remaining portion of the site has most of the existing Oaks, Pines, and Madrones, with grasses below. The parcels to the north and south of the subject property are developed with single-family homes, and there is an existing driveway to the west of the property. Occasionally deer and other animals that live in the hillside area frequent the site. Few oaks will be removed from the site in order to facilitate the construction of the home, but the majority of the trees on the site will remain. There are no ponds, streams, or waterways on or near the subject property, and the existing drainage presently enters the City's storm sewer system. B. Significance Criteria: Project impacts upon biological resources would be significant if any of the following resulted: Substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g.burrowing owls); · Substantial effect upon sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; 12 Substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon Federally protected wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy or ordinance); C. Impacts: No impacts: 1. Plant Life: While some clearing and light grading of the site did occur prior to project approval, the likelihood that rare and endangered plants were located in these areas is remote at best. No rare and endangered plants were found in the general vicinity of the homesite shown on the approved Final Map for the Hull/Piffero subdivision, and the topography and habitat conditions for the homesite proposed in this project are highly similar. In fact, the vegetative report done for the subdivision project concluded that the type of habitat area immediately adjacent to the homesites was not indicative of the habitats of any potential rare and endangered plant species, therefore it is highly unlikely that the homesites contained rare and endangered plant species. Based on this site- specific study, staff is able to conclude that the proposed development of driveways, homesites, and other proposed improvements, in and of themselves, would not have a potentially significant adverse impact on rare and endangered plant species. The project applicants are not proposing the removal of mature oak or other mature native trees for driveway and homesite development, therefore none would be impacted by the proposal. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that the introduction of exotic tree species will cause any significant adverse impacts since none of the trees is expected to propagate easily in the growing conditions on the site, and the majority of plants were selected for their fire-resistant and drought-tolerant qualities. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on mature trees. 2. Mammals: The construction of the proposed single-family home in this area of existing development will not hinder the movement of the animals that frequent the site, nor significantly intrude on their habitat. Since little understory removal will be necessary to construct the home, and most of the vegetation on the parcel will remain, there will not be significant impact to the forage opportunity for deer or other animals. The displacement of mammals and/or destruction of their habitats by this project is not regarded as significant because of the lack of habitat in the proposed location of the house that will be disturbed and the fact that the majority of the natural habitat will be preserved on the site. Based on these findings, it is staff's conclusion that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the local deer population or other mammals utilizing the subject property. 3. Birds: The removal of trees and understory growth necessary for the homesite is a relatively minor, and most of the vegetation on the site would remain, so the project does not require substantial tree removal or bird habitat destruction. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that no significant adverse impacts to bird species will result from the project. D. Mitigation Measure: None required. 13 E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A. 5. NOISE: A. Settinq: Much of the western hillside area is not densely developed and therefore does not have the typical background noise associated with a city; however, this project, being located at the edge of the densely populated portion of the city will be subject to typical urban noises such as, automobile and truck traffic, collections of human voices, street working crews and heavy equipment, etc. These noises are typical and expected in an urban environment. B. Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant noise impact if it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Exposes people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise Ordinance. 2. Causes a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 3. Causes a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project. C. Impacts: The Ukiah General Plan identifies the significant noise sources in the City as transportation noise coming from major roadways, railroad operations, industrial plants, and airports. Single-family residences are not identified as significant generators of noise. In fact, a single-family residence is identified as a "noise-sensitive" land use, along with churches, libraries, hospitals, etc. The focus of the Noise Element in the General Plan is to protect the noise-sensitive land uses from transportation, industrial, railroad, and airport noise. It establishes noise contours around these noise sources in the community, where typical noise can exceed the defined threshold of 60 dB (decibels). The subject property is not situated within these noise contours. The City Noise Ordinance establishes a maximum level of noise emanating from single family residences to 40 decibels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 50 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and 45 decibels from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the proposed subdivision and construction of a single-family residence will exceed these noise levels. Short-term noise impacts are expected during the actual construction of the project. Staff notes that several complaints concerning truck noise were received from valley residents during the construction of the Hull residence, but these complaints were centered on trucks running by residences before 7:00 a.m., and were immediately addressed through the standard noise control standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code, which are described above. Staff anticipates that these standards will also be included as standard conditions of approval for the project, but they are not required as mitigation of an environmental impact. D. Mitigation Measure: N/A E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A 6. AESTHETICS, VISUAL QUALITY, AND LIGHT AND GLARE: A. Settinq: The scenic beauty qualities of the western hillside are recognized in the 1995 Ukiah General Plan, which cites the contributions that the tree-studded hills make to the rural setting of the City and to the overall qualities of life. This project, since it is located at 14 the bottom edge of the hillside and just adjacent to existing urban development, will not be visible from the valley floor below such as a development higher on the hillside may, though the house will be visible from the intersections of Highland Ave. and Clay Street. Outdoor lights associated with the development could possibly be a nuisance to neighboring properties. B. Significance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the project resulted in obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway, creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public, substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or generates new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including that which would directly illuminate or reflect upon adjacent property or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise situated within sight of the project. The Ukiah General Plan Open Space/Conservation Policies directs development to be sited and designed to minimize impacts on views from the valley and Highway 101. Field review of the project site from the Highway 101 corridor and other viewing points reveal that the subject property will not be visible from any substantial distance from the subject property. C. Impacts: Outdoor lighting associated with the project could be a nuisance to neighboring properties if allowed to shine offsite towards neighboring properties or the night sky. D. Mitigation Measures to Off-Set Visual Impacts: 16. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final landscaping and Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee. The Final Landscaping Plan shall also include details regarding the exterior lighting for the residence, garden areas, and walkways. All exterior lighting shall be hooded and down-cast, and shall not shine towards neighboring properties or skyward. E. Impact Si¢lnificance After Mitiqation: Limiting the lighting to not shine towards neighboring properties or the night sky will reduce the potentially significant adverse visual quality impacts to levels of insignificance. 7. LAND USE: A. Settinq: The City of Ukiah is a compact urban environment, and functions as the County seat for Mendocino County. Commercial, residential, and industrial land uses are planned for specific areas, as set forth in the 1995 Ukiah General Plan. B. Significance Criteria: Significant land use impacts would occur if the project substantially conflicted with established uses, disrupted or divided an established community, or resulted in a substantial alteration to present or planned land uses. Proposed project consistency with the Ukiah General Plan and zoning and any other applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential land use impacts. C. Impacts: development designation. The Ukiah General Plan designates the hillside area for rural residential including single-family homes, and the proposed project meets that 15 D. Mitigation Measure: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A , NATURAL RESOURCES: A. Setting: The subject residential parcel is located at the edge of urban development, and is not recognized for existing valuable natural resources. Most of the established vegetation will remain undisturbed by the construction of the proposed residence, and no significant wildlife or scenic corridors will be disturbed. Construction materials derived from natural resources off-site will be used to develop the proposed project. B. Significance Criteria: Impacts to natural resources would be substantial if the proposed project resulted in the loss of significant or locally important materials such as minerals, gravel, sand, and heritage trees. C. Impacts: The proposed project would use sand, gravel, rock, wood, concrete, and other naturally occuring building materials. However, these building materials are readily available in the Ukiah Valley and would not be extracted from the project site. It is not anticipated that the project would demand excessive amounts of these materials and cause a direct increase in mining activities. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on natural resources. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: N/A. . HUMAN HEALTH, TOXIC MATERIALS, AND OTHER HAZARDS: A. Settinq: Ukiah is generally regarded as a healthy City with relatively clean air and water. While there are some known toxic "spots" resulting from the past storage of hazardous materials underground, the City is not regarded as having a highly contaminated environment. Based on field review, and the review of contaminated site listings maintained by the City, it has been determined that the project site is in a clean and healthy state and not contaminated with toxic or hazardous materials. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to the environment and the public associated with hazards and hazardous materials would result from a project if any of the following occurred: · Creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment by routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or from foreseeable upset and accident conditions; · Emission and/or handling of hazardous, acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/~ mile of an existing or proposed school; · Location of a project on a listed hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; 16 · Impairment/interference with adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; C. Impacts: The project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and therefore would not meet any of the criteria listed above. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and the public associated with hazardous materials. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. D. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A. 10. POPULATION AND HOUSING: A. Setting: The 2000 census indicates that the population of Ukiah is 15,597 persons, With a slow and stable growth rate. The population has not changed much in the past several years, and it has only been very recently that it appears to be noticeably increasing. The 1995 General Plan projected a population of 17,291 for the year 2000, which is 1694 more than the current population. B. Si_qnificance Criteria: Population and housing impacts would be significant if the project induced substantial direct or indirect (e.g., road extensions) population growth in an area and displaced substantial numbers of existing houses and/or substantial numbers of people, thus requiring replacement housing elsewhere. C. .Impacts: The proposed project would provide additional housing stock to the Ukiah Valley, and therefore would not have an adverse impact on housing. D. Miti_qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A 11. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION: A. Setting: Ukiah is a rural city that is not experiencing significant population growth. However, as the government and commercial center for Mendocino County, the City has been growing in terms of commercial development. This has increased traffic and its corresponding delays at intersections, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. While traffic impacts are somewhat subjective in nature, recent traffic studies show that the delays at some key intersections have substantially increased in the past several years. B. Si_qnificance Criteria: According to the Ukiah General Plan Circulation Element, the minimum acceptable level of service (LOS) on City residential streets/intersections is LOS "C." Other criteria include whether the project would have substantial effects upon air traffic patterns; whether the project would increase traffic hazards due to design features; whether the project has inadequate emergency access; whether the project has inadequate parking capacity; and whether the project would create conflicts with adopted policies, programs and plans for alternative transportation. 17 C. Impacts: The building out of the proposed project would produce an additional ten (10) daily trips per day along adjacent public streets. The main public streets used to access the project site is West Clay Street and Highland Avenue. Field observations during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours reveal that while these streets have experienced an increase in traffic over the past several years, they are still free- flowing and without delays at stop signs. Discussions with staff from the City Department of Public Works reveal that in their best professional judgement, West Clay Street and Highland Avenue are currently operating at a Level of Service A (free flow) during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. According to Public Works staff, the projected additional ten (10) trips per day would not erode the Level of Service to a level C or worse. Moreover, the estimated 10 a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips would not erode any intersection level of service to a level deemed unacceptable by the City General Plan. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on local traffic and circulation patterns. D. Miti_qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A 12. PUBLIC SERVICES: A. Setting: Ukiah is a complete City with a full complement of public services. B. Significance Criteria: Impacts to public services would be significant if the project resulted in adverse physical impacts upon capacity that would lead to construction of new public facilities or substantial alteration to existing governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service levels or performance levels. C. Impacts: Staff discussed the proposed project with the City Police, Parks, Utilities, and Fire Departments, as well as with the Ukiah Unified School District. City Police Department: Discussions with the City Police Department reveals that the proposed project will not result in the need for additional police officers, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to serve the future residents of the five-parcel subdivision. City Community Services Department: Discussions with the City Community Services Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for additional staff or park facilities, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to maintain the current City-owned park facilities. City Utilities Department: Discussions with the City Utilities Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for new or expanded electrical generation sources, nor will it cause the need for additional staff to maintain the current City-owned electric service facilities. The amount of electricity needed by the one (1) future residence is not substantial, and is available from current generation capacity. While the sewage treatment plant is reaching capacity, it is expected that there will be a hookup available for this single-family residence at time of construction, and this project alone does not have a significant impact on the capacity of the system. 18 City Fire Department: While the home site is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the City Fire Department indicated that there are no extenuating circumstances requiring additional fire preventative measures due to the similarities of this home to many other single-family residences in the city, and have indicated that they are able to provide adequate fire protection to the home, therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Ukiah Unified School District: Discussions with the Ukiah Unified School District reveal that they have the basic capacity to house and educate the minimal number of potential students generated by the proposed single-family residence. The applicants will be required to pay the adopted school district developer mitigation fee that is intended to offset the cumulative impact contribution to the district from all development projects. D. Miti_qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A 13. ENERGY: A. Settin_q: Energy resources are readily available to the citizens of Ukiah. These include electricity, natural gas, propane, and alternative sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric. a. Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant impact if it causes the use of fuel or energy in a wasteful manner, or encourages activities that result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy. C. Impacts: The proposed home construction will use fuels and energy. The precise amounts that would be used cannot be precisely determined because the length of use of certain heavy equipment is unknown. However, because of the scope of the project, there is no reason to believe that a significant amount of energy will be used during construction activities or the future use of the single-family residence. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to speculate that the construction crews and future residents will waste energy or fuels. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on energy resources. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A 14. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: A. Settinq: The City of Ukiah's Public Utilities will provide electrical service and water to the proposed project site from services available at Highland Ave. In addition, Pacific Gas and Electric will provide natural gas, which service is also available at Highland Ave. B. Siqnificance Criteria: Impacts to utilities and service systems would be significant if the proposed project results in a physical need to develop new systems or causes a substantial physical alteration to existing facilities. 19 C. Impacts: Discussions with the City Utilities Department staff reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for new systems, and will not cause a substantial physical alteration to the existing City facilities. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the City electrical generation and distribution systems, water reserve and distribution systems, and Pacific Gas and Electric gas reserves and distribution systems. D. Miti_qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A. 15. RECREATION: A. Settinq: Recreation resources in the City of Ukiah are abundant and well maintained. Outside the city limits there are substantial recreational resources and open space areas available to the public. B. Significance Criteria: Impacts to recreation would be significant if the project resulted in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities or required creation of new recreational facilities. C. Impacts: As discussed in Section 12 (Public Services) above, discussions with the City Community Services Department reveals that the proposed project will not result in the need for additional staff or park facilities, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to maintain the current City-owned park facilities. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities, and will not require the creation of new facilities to serve the future residents. D. Miti_qation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A. 16. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: A. Setting: The City of Ukiah is rich in historical resources, which include an eclectic assortment of historic homes and properties. Cultural resources are similarly abundant, and the City has provided for the preservation and enhancement of its cultural heritage. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to historic and cultural resources would occur if implementation of the project would: · Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical or cultural resource; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure or district that may be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure so that it 20 results in the loss of a designated county landmark in the City of Ukiah; · Result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature, or disturbs any human remains. C. Impacts: Figure V.3-DD of the Historic and Archaeological Resources Element contained in the General Plan indicates that the subject property is not situated within an area of high cultural resource sensitivity. These areas are generally located along streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses. Accordingly, it is concluded that the likelihood of a prehistoric site being located on the subject property is remote, and that the probability of site preparation and construction activities disturbing and significantly impacting any prehistoric cultural resources is very Iow. However, to ensure that potential resources are not significantly impacted, a standard mitigation measure is recommended that would halt construction in the event of a discovery, and require the applicants to hire a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the resources and develop mitigation measures as appropriate. D. Mitigation Measures 17. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and the City notified of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program if deemed necessary. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: This mitigation ensures that cultural resources will not be adversely affected. The impact is reduced to a level that is not significant. 21. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING: AB 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the applicants to incorporate or comply with a number of important Mitigation Measures. MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING HOW AND WHEN VERIFICATION FUNDING MEASURES RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY Geology and Applicants with Contracting with Dept of Public Applicants Soils Staff oversight consultants during Works staff various phases of site preparation and construction 21 Air Quality Visual Quality Historical and Cultural Resources Applicants with Staff oversight Applicants with Staff oversight Applicants and Grading/site preparation contractors During all phases of construction During final design of single family residence and Landscaping Plan During site preparation and construction phases of project Planning and Public Works department Staffs Planning Department staff Planning Department staff Applicants Applicants Applicants in the event of a discovery 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: A, Potential to Degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO X B, Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES NO X C, Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES NO X 22 D, Substantially Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO X 23. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this Initial Study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described within the Initial Study will be incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the pr.opo o I Coordinator Title ~posed project MAY have a significant adverse impact on the NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required. Charles Stump Print Name July 291 2004 Date 23 RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY . . . City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995 The Linkaqe Between Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1993. The Land Use - Air Quality Linka.qe: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1997. Transportation-Related Land Use Strateqies to Minimize Mobile Source Emissions: An Indirect . . . 10. 11. Source Research Project, State Air Resources Board, 1995. A Source of Air Quality Conditions Includinq Emissions Inventory, Ozone Formation, PM10 Generation, and Mitiqation Measures for Mendocino County, CA., Sonoma Technologies, Inc., November, 1998. Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, January, 1991. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975). Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996. City Air Photographs: 1996, 2000, and 2001 Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report for 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers. Correspondence received from the City Fire Department regarding fire protection service 12. Discussions with the following City staff and Agency representatives: a. Chuck Yates, Fire Marshal b. Larry DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services c. Thomas McArthur, Sewer/Water Eng. Tech. d. Cindy Sauers, Electrical Distribution Engineer e. Diana Steele, Public Works Director/City Engineer f. Tim Eriksen, Civil Engineer g. Rick Sands, Engineering Associate h. John Williams, Police Chief 24 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Licensed by the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors 175 Second Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel. No. (707) 262-1749 Fax: (707) 262-1749 email: nlhomscn:(i mchsi.com May 26, 2004 Dr. Fred Graeber 3600 Orr Springs Rd. Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report New House 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Re: Use Permit No. 04-03 Dear Dr. Graeber: I am pleased to submit my Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report for the proposed new house to be located at the above referenced property. This report contains the results of my site subsurface investigation as well as my recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of design. The building site is underlain by a sandy clay soil which is in turn underlain by weathered shale and sandstone. The house can be founded on a shallow foundation system consisting of strip footings. Very truly yours, THOMSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS .... , -7K? (~' .~: / ~ /' .- ',_. ,'.. , ) r.... ,.:.. ~. ..... ,/ i i.-., .... ,, Neil A. Thomsen G.E. 2044; C.E. 35556 Dr. Gracber Geotechnicai Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 2 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report New House 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed house to be located on the above referenced property. The objective of this report is to present my f'mdings, conclusions and recommendations for the geotechnical engineering aspects of design and construction. II. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS A. Introduction Information about the proposed project was provided by Mr. Mike White, general contractor. The house will be a wood frame structure. Site development grading will consist of excavation to create a level pad for the attached garage. No significant unsupported cuts will be created. The house will be located on a lot which has been created by subdividing an exiting residential lot. The new lot will be trapezoidal shaped with a width of 60 feet and lengths of 257.6 feet on the south side and 288.75 feet on the north side. B. Slope Stability The site is at the base of a relatively steep east facing slope. A careful examination was made of the existing slope on the subject lot in order to identify existing landslides or unstable slopes, if present. I did not see any geological features on the Graeber lot which would indicate the presence of unstable slopes. However, past slope instability has occurred on other nearby properties. This is discussed in the "Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report"(dated May 26, 2004) prepared for this lot. ,t. Dr. Graeber Geotechnical Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 3 C. Subsurface Conditions Three test pits were excavated at the site. Two test pits were excavated duhng my site visit of January 21, 2003. The third test pit was excavated on April 23, 2004. The location of the test pits is shown on Figure 2. The Test Pit Logs are shown after that. These test pits were excavated to provide subsurface information for a former development plan for the existing lot. The subsurface profile was similar in the three pits. The upper 84 to 96 inches of soil consists of sandy clay with a low expansion potential. The soil is stiff to very stiff. The plasticity index of the soil is generally less than 15% (see Plasticity Chart). An expansion index test (UBC Standard 18-2) was performed on a sample from Test Pit 2 at a depth of 3 feet. The expansion index is 49. The clay soil was underlain by weathered sandstone and shale. This rock is part of the Franciscan Assemblage which underlies much of Northern California. D. Groundwater Conditions The groundwater table was encountered at a depth of 76 inches in Test Pit 1 on January 21, 2003. The water table was not encountered in'the other two test pits. Based on the time of year, it is my opinion that the water table at this property is not shallower than indicated in the three test pits. III. CONCLUSIONS Based on my site observations, subsurface investigation and understanding of the proposed work, it is my opinion that the subsurface soil at the site will provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structures provided that the recommendations given in this report are followed. The proposed house can be supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of strip footings and spread footings. Tb~esee C~asvltlav Ea~i~eers IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Graeber Geotechnical Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 4 The recommendations given below are based on the assumption that site development will not result in significant permanent cuts and fills. Instead, the excavation for the garage will be completely supported with concrete retaining walls. This will result in unchanged slope stability conditions of the hillside behind the house. A. Foundation Design and Construction Recommendations The building can be supported by a shallow foundation system consisting of reinforced concrete, cast-in-place strip and spread footings. All footings should be connected to each other so as to create an integrated foundation system. The reinforced concrete footings should be designed with an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot for dead loads. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 at the base of the footings can be used for design. Footings should extend at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. However, in the front or east side of the house as well as the garage, the footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Ail footings should be at least 12 inches wide. The continuous and spread footings can also resist lateral forces. The lateral resistance of the footings is provided by the passive earth pressure which acts against the vertical face of that portion of the footing below the ground surface. I recommend that a passive earth pressure of 350 psf (equivalent fluid density) be used for design. The passive earth pressure can be considered to act beginning at 12 inches below the ground surface and on down. The footing excavations should be fi'ee of loose soil fall-in and standing water when the concrete is placed. If loose soil or debris falls into the footing excavation prior to concrete placement then the loose soil and debris should be removed. If water collects in the footing excavations, the water should be pumped out prior to concrete Thomsea Coas~ltla~ Ea~iaeers Dr. Graeber Geotechnical Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 5 placement. Furthermore, the muddy surface left after water removal should be allowed to dry and the base of the footing excavation should by compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). B. Site Grading Site grading will consist of excavation for the garage. No other significant grading will occur. There won't be any significant permanent cut or fill slopes on the site when the project is finished. Engineered Fill: All fill to be placed at the site during construction is considered to be engineered fill. Surfaces to receive engineered fill must be stripped of all organic material, scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% (ASTM D 1557). Soil fill must be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Fill material must be spread in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a moisture content that will permit proper compaction by either aerating the material if it is too wet or spraying the material with water if it is too dry. Each lift shall be thoroughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of water content. Boulders greater than 12 inches in diameter should be set aside and not incorporated into the fill. Trench Backfill: Ail trench backfill must be compacted. Backfill for trenches within pavement areas and beneath slabs or other structures must be compacted in 6 to 8 inch layers with mechamcal tampers to assure adequate subgrade support. Jetting and flooding as the only means of backfill compaction will not be permitted. However, the backfill may be flooded, as appropriate, prior to mechanical tamping. The trench backfill must be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% (ASTM D 1557) with the top 12 inches compacted to a mimmum relative compaction of 95%. For trenches less than 2 feet in width, only the top 36 inches needs to be compacted to a mimmum relative compaction of 90%. The rest of the backfill in these narrow trenches below a depth of 36 inches must be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 85%. Thomsea Coas~ltia~ Ea~iaeers C Surface Drainage Dr. Graeber Geotechnicai Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 6 All ground surfaces next to the buildings must slope away from the foundation. Water must not be allowed to pond within 10 feet of any improvements. Unpaved ground surfaces must be graded away from the buildings on all sides with a 2% slope for a minimum of 4 feet. Paved surfaces next to buildings must slope away from the buildings with a minimum 1% slopes. Swales or underground pipes must be constructed which carry surface runoff away from the buildings. Roof downspouts must be used to collect roof runoff water. The downspouts must discharge into an underground collector pipe which discharges at an appropriate location. Landscaping and sidewalks must not be installed so as to trap runoff water next to the buildings. In general, surface water must not be directed onto slopes. Site grades must be designed so that surface water runoff from developed areas is directed into an underground storm drain system or onto paved surfaces rather than onto graded and natural slopes. D. Retaining WaII Recommendations My recommendations for static lateral earth pressures which can be expected to act on the retaining walls are given in Table 1. The values do not include surcharge -.loads or hydrostatic pressures that might be caused by water trapped behind the walls. In addition, I recommend that an ultimate friction factor of 0.40 be used for evaluating the friction force between mass concrete and the site soil. The equivalent fluid densities given in Table 1 are based on the assumption that free .draining granular material will be used as backfill immediately behind the wall in order to prevent hydrostatic pressures. Granular material used as backfill must conform to the Caltrans specification for Class 2 Permeable Material. The minimum width of the granular backfill zone placed behind the wall must be 12 inches. A 4 inch diameter perforated drain pipe must be placed at the bottom of the granular section to collect water and transport the water to an appropriate discharge point. Tbomsea Coasultia~j Ea~jiaeers Dr. Graeber Geotechnicai Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 7 TABLE 1' Design Static Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (pounds per cubic foo0 Active I! 35 At-rest il Passive 11 350 As an alternative, prefabricated geocomposite drainage structures, such as Miradrain, may be used for wall drainage. The strip drains must also discharge into a 4 inch diameter perforated pipe. A minimum of 12 inches of clayey soil or a concrete slab-on-grade must be place over the drain section in order to prevent surface water nmoff from entering the drainage system behind the wall. The recommendations for the house foundations can also be used to design the retaining wall foundations. E. Maintenance Maintenance of exterior ground surface grades to prevent ponding next the buildings is essential. Roof gutters, downspout pipes and other drainage features must be checked annually to clear potential blockage and check pipe condition. Minor wall, wall-covering and slab cracks can be expected in the future. Slab and wall cracks must be kept sealed to prevent water intrusion. Interior wallboard cracks must be patched and painted as part of normal building maintenance. Tkoli/ei OotnltiIE~ Eig|ieeu Dr. Graeber Geotechnicai Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 8 V. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS A. Additional Services The review of plans and contract documents as prepared by the design engineer and field observation of foundation construction and site grading for the proposed building by Thomsen Consulting Engineers is an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. The required observation and consultations by Thomsen Consulting Engineers during construction includes, but is not necessarily limited to: Review of plans and contract documents Observation of foundation construction Observation of site grading B. Limitations The conclusions and recommendations in this report are to be used only for design and construction purposes of the proposed project as described in this report. This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for geotechnical and geological engineering practice which exists in Lake, Sonoma and Mendocino County at the time the report was written. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Tkom~ OeeseltimEJ E,,~iaeers Dr. Gracbcr Geotechnicai Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 7 TABLE 1: Design Static Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (pounds per cubic foo0 Active II 35 ~" II At-rest 70 ~.:' Passive I[ 350 :~' As an alternative, prefabricated geocomposite drainage structures, such as Miradrain, may be used for wall drainage. The strip drains must also discharge into a 4 inch diameter perforated pipe. A minimum of 12 inches of clayey soil or a concrete slab-on-grade must be place over the drain section in order to prevent surface water runoff from entering the drainage system behind the wall. The recommendations for the house foundations can also be used to design the retaining wall foundations. E. Maintenance Maintenance of exterior ground surface grades to prevent ponding next the buildings is essential. Roof gutters, downspout pipes and other drainage features must be checked annually to clear potential blockage and check pipe condition. Minor wall, wall-covering and slab cracks can be expected in the future. Slab and wall cracks must be kept sealed to prevent water intrusion. Interior wallboard cracks must be patched and painted as part of normal building maintenance. TWa Oo~J~IUiE~ Etlglieer# Dr. Gracbcr Geotechnical Engineering Report New House, 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 8 V. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS A. Additional Services The review of plans and contract documents as prepared by the design engineer and field observation of foundation construction and site grading for the proposed building by Thomsen Consulting Engineers is an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in tiffs report. The required observation and consultations by Thomsen Consulting Engineers during construction includes, but is not necessarily limited to: Review of plans and contract documents Observation of foundation construction Observation of site grading B. Limitations The conclusions and recommendations in this report are to be used only for design and construction purposes of the proposed project as described in this report. Tlfis report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for geotechnical and geological engineering practice which exists in Lake, Sonoma and Mendocino County at the time the report was written. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Tkol/ei OolJlltlit! EilJieeu 290 Highland Ave. . Reference: USGS, Ukiah Quadrangle Map Scale: I in = 2,080 ft Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Ave. Ukiah, CA Site Location Map Figure 1 Feb. 2003 anua^¥ PUDILI~!H I I I I I i I I I i i I i I i I I I ! I I , I ! i ! i i I I o Depth Sample No. Log of Test Pit I Material Description Moislure Content Unconfined Compressive Strength /ksO m _ 7 9 I-I I-2 SANDY CLAY (Old - medium brown - medium plasticity - stiff _ N20% fine to medium sand SANDY CLAY [CL] - light brown - medium plastictly - stiff to very stiff - ~20o/o fine to medium sand WEATHERED SANDSTONE - yellow brown - highly to completely weathered - hard soil or soft rock Bottom of Test P/t 20.4 24.4 3.1 4.2 Field Engineer: Neil A. Thomsen Date: January 21, 2003 water Table Depth: Water table encountered at 78 inches on an. 21 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Test Pit Logs Lakeport, California 2003 January 2003 Depth [Pt] 2 __ 5 6 _ 8 _ Sample No. Log of Test Pit 2 Material Description CLAYEY SAND [SC} - light brown - medium plasticity - stiff - -20% fine to medium sand Bottom of Test Pit Moisfure Content [%] Unconfined Compressive Strength [ksO Field Engineer: Date: Water Table Depth: Neil A. Thomsen April 23, 2004 Water table not encom~tered at on A 23, 2004 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geolog~ Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Test Pit Logs April 2004 Depth Irt] 2 5 6 7 9 Sample ' Log of Test Pit 3 NO, Material Description 3-1 3-2 SANDY CLAY - medium brown - medium plastictly - stiff - -20% fine to medium sand CLAYEY SAND [SC) - light brown - medium plasticity - very stiff _ N20% fine to medium sand Bottom of Test Pit Moisture Content fi/o] 19.2 22,3 Unconfined Compressive Strenglh {ksO 2.4 5.3 Field Engineer: Nell A. Thomsen Date: January 21, 2003 Water Table Depth: Water table not encountered on 'an. 21 2003 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Test Pit Logs January 2003 Plasticity Index [%] 6O 5O 40 3O 2O 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 O0 Liquid Limit [%] Symbol Sample Depth Liquid PlasticityUCS Number (fl) Limit Index Classification I ~) 1-1 2 32 12 CL _ -- I ~1~ 1-2 4.,.5 36 14 CL I I Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geolog~ Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA PLASTICITY CHART Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Licensed by the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Suta,eyors 175 Second Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel. No. (707) 262-1749 FAX: (707) 262-1749 email: nlhomscn:i'~ n~c:hsi.com May 26, 2004 Dr. Fred Graeber c/o Mr. Jim Lacy 932 Helen Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report 300 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Dear Dr. Graeber: The purpose of this feasibility report is to assess the geotechnical and geological conditions at the site with respect to the proposed new house at the above referenced location. In my opinion, construction of the proposed new house is feasible given the geotechnical and geological conditions. Grading and construction should not pose any significant on-site or off-site hazards providing the work is performed properly. Very truly yours, Thomsen Consulting Engineers '"it '' / / ; / X i 4 / ~.-~ ''la ....~' ~.x..... ii fi / ,' ./!;../ -.t.~-/ i,' / C. )/V~--"' IV / CE 35556, GE 2044 CEG 1148, RG 3762 I. Introduction Geotechnical And Geological Feasibility. Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 2 Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Information about the project was provided by Mr. Mike White, general contractor. A single family house will be built on the property. Very minor grading will be performed. An excavation will be made to create a level area for the attached garage. The site location and regional topography is shown on Figure 1. An oblique view from the northeast is shown on Figure 2. A satellite view of the area is shown on Figure 3. An oblique satellite view from the northeast is shown on Figure 4. II. Geological Conditions A. Surface Soil The site is probably underlain by one soil type.~ The typical characteristics of these soils are given m the following table. The Soil Survey map for the site is shown on Figure 5. Table 1' Characteristics of Surficial Soil Soil Series Soil Permeability Erosion Soil Type Shrink - Water Name Depth Hazard Swell Table (fi) Potential Depth fit) 151: Hopland- > 3 moderately slow high on loam to clay low to > 6 Wohly loam to moderate very steep loam moderate slopes The soil conditions at the site do not pose any hazard to site development. i Howard, R.F. and R.H. Bowman, January 1991, Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part, California, U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibility Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 3 Three test pits were excavated at the site at the locations shown on Figure 8. The logs of the test pits are shown pages following Figure 8. A detailed geotechnical engineering report dated May 26, 2004 was prepared for this project. That report contains recommendations for grading and foundation construction for the house and garage. B. Underlying Material The regional geology is shown on Figure 62. The site is located in the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. Geological structures in this area generally trend northwest- southeast. A cursory study of the engineering geology of the Western Hills prepared for the City of Ukiah is presented in Figure 73. Most of the this part of the western hills are underlain by interbedded sandstone and shale of the Lookout Peak Graywacke. The sandstone varies in hardness. Outcrops on the Graeber property are quite hard. However, highly weathered sandstone was encountered at depth in the test pits. The bedrock is overlain by residual soil. The soil observed in the test pits was stiff to very stiff. This type of soil is suitable for foundation support and is not particularly susceptible to slope instability. C. Seismic Conditions The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Consequently, it appears that a known earthquake fault which is capable of surface displacement does not cross the site. Statewide and regional fault locations are shown on Figure 7 and 8. 2 Jennings, C.W. and R.G. Strand, 1960, "Geologic Map of Califorma, Ukiah Sheet", scale: 1 in-- 4 miles, California Division of Mines and Geology. 3 Sydnor, R.H. and J.A. Solwma-Bawcom, 1991, Landslides and Engineering Geology of the Western Ukiah Area, Central Mendocino County, Califorma, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File 91-16 and Landslide Hazard Identification Map Number 24. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibility Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 4 The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 (Uniform Building Code-1997 Edition). Earthquakes along several nearby active faults will probably cause moderate to strong ground motion at the site during the life of the proposed project. There are four nearby active or potentially active faults which could have a significant impact on the site. The distance to nearby active faults is shown on Table 2. The relevant seismic parameters of the active faults are listed in Table 2. The primary seismic hazard at the site will be ground shaking. Liquefaction is unlikely to occur because the available evidence indicates that the site is not underlain by saturated loose fine sand. Instead the site is underlain by a thin layer of clayey soil over hard fractured bedrock. Table 2: Estimated Seismic Parameters Maacama 2.5 7 6.5 0.7 San Andreas 26.5 8.5 8.25 0.3 Hapward 84 7 6.5 0.1 Konocti Bal/ 24 6 5.5 0.1 References: (1) Mendocino County General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, 1986 (2) Seed, H. Bolton and I.M. Idriss, 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. (3) California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, "Digital Images of Official Maps of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones of California, Central Coast Region" DMG CD 2000-04. On the basis of current technology, as well as historical evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed structures will be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause moderate to strong intensity ground shaking at the site at some time during the next 50 years. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibility Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah. CA Page 5 The probability of a particular seismic hazard at the site is described in Table 3. Table 3' Probability of Occurrence of Earthquake Hazard Ground shaking High Surface displacement along fault trace None Ground rupture Low Seismically induced landslides Low Differential Compaction / Seismic LOw Settlement Tsunami None Seiches None Liquefaction Low D. Slope Stability There isn't any evidence of past slope instability on this property (that is, the new lot formed after the larger lot is split). The hillside immediately above the lot also appears stable. There isn't any evidence to indicate the presence of large deep- seated bedrock landslide m the immediate area. In general, the sandstone present in the western hills is relatively stable. A careful examination was made of the existing slope on this property m order to identify existing landslides or unstable slopes, if present. I did not see any geological features which would indicate the presence of unstable slopes on the Graeber lot which is the subject of this report. There is a debris flow scar located about 800 feet west of the Graeber property. This debris flow reportedly occurred in 1986 during a very heavy rainstorm. This debris flow did not cause damage on the Graeber lot and does not threaten the Graeber property since it is located in another drainage. There is a driveway leading to another house above the Graeber lot. This driveway effectively diverts any potential debris flow fi.om flowing onto the Graeber property. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibility Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 6 In addition, there is a large flat fill area directly behind the driveway. This also would divert a debris flow from impacting the Graeber property. Therefore, in my opinion, debris flows which can be a common hazard during periods of intense rainfall do not appear to be a significant risk at this lot. I do not expect any debris flows to affect the property in the future due solely to natural events. However, Mr. Brian Keefer at the City of Ukiah Planning Department stated the following: "In addition to these items, there have been accounts that the landslide of 1986 above the property did create a debris flow across the housing site, just missing the neighboring house, 300 Highland. Please have your Engineer indicate if the soils at the proposed house site were possibly deposited by that debris flow, and advise accordingly.''4 Mr. Keefer later told Mr. White that the information quoted above was provided by an employee of the City, Ms. Ballard. I have discussed this information with Mr. Gary Nix who owned this property in 1986. Mr. Nix stated that he has lived in this area for nearly 30 years and has owned the three adjacent properties at 280, 290 and 300 Highland Avenue for much of that time. He said that he has never seen a debris flow on these properties especially one affecting 300 Highland Avenue which he owned in 1986 when the reported debris flow occurred. He did verify that a large debris flow occurred about 800 feet to the west as mentioned in the second paragraph of this section. However, Mr. Nix said that this large debris flow did not affect the property at 290 and 300, or even come close to it. Because of Mr. Nix' s statement and the evidence I observed during my site visit, I believe that the information provided by Mr. Keefer is erroneous and mistaken. I believe that Mr. Nix's eyewitness accounts based on many years residence in the area are more reliable than that provided by Mr. Keefer. Furthermore, my own examination of the property did not indicate any evidence of a past debris flow on 4 Keefer, Brian, Associate Planner at the City of Ukiah, letter of February 25, 2004 to Dr. Fred Graeber. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibili~ Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 7 the existing lot or the new, smaller lot to be created by splitting the larger lot. Therefore, I am ignoring the information provided by City staff. Some lots in the hillside areas of Ukiah have experienced unstable slopes. Quite often the problems on these unstable lots was caused by improper grading during site development. In many cases a flat building pad was created by cutting into the slope and placing the fill on the downslope side of the building pad. Although a very common method of developing hillside properties, cut and fill grading can lead to slope stability problems in the future if improperly performed. Grading on these unstable properties appears to have resulted in oversteepened slopes which were doomed to failure. Furthermore, it appears that the fill was not properly compacted and/or drained, which again inevitably led to earth movement problems. The lot which is the subject of this report will not be graded in the same way the unstable lots in the western hills were developed. The creation of an unstable cut and fill pad will not be done. The major excavation on the lot will be completely supported by an engineered reinforced concrete retaining wall. The excavation should be done in the summer when ground conditions are stable. The excavation should be supported with the concrete wall within a few weeks. Therefore, the slope conditions above the retaining wall will be the same as they are now, that is, stable. In other words, the support for the slope which is now being supplied by the native soil and rock will be completely replaced with the support provided by the new concrete wall. In fact, the concrete wall will provide greater support than the soil and rock which is removed during site grading. E. Building Foundation In general, foundation design and construction should not present any significant difficulties at this site. The surface soil has a low to moderate expansion potential which can easily be mitigated by standard design procedures such as making the foundation deeper than ordinarily required. Furthermore, the presence of weathered rock at a shallow depth indicates more than adequate support is available for strip and spread footings. Geotechnical And Geological Feasibili~. Report 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah, CA Page 8 III. CONCLUSIONS The geological hazards at the site are very common. All of the hazards at the site would be encountered in other nearby areas. Techniques to mitigate the possible impact of the geological hazards are well known and commonly used in the area. Extraordinary and extremely expensive methods to mitigate the existing geological hazards are not required for the site. The primary geological hazard at the site is seismic shaking during an earthquake. Earthquakes along nearby active faults will cause ground shaking at the site at some time in the future. The relevant seismic criteria for nearby earthquake faults are given in Tables 2 and 3. On the basis of current technology, as well as historical evidence, it is reasonable to assume that during the life of the structure, it will be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong ground shaking at the site. The best way to mitigate seismic hazards is to build structures with wood framing constructed in accordance with the latest building code. At the present time it is unknown whether or not loose fine sand underlies the site. Although unlikely based on the available geological evidence, the presence of loose fine sand would indicate the use of pile foundations for buildings. IV. LIMITATIONS The conclusions in this report are to be used for feasibility evaluation of the lot as described in this report. This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for geotechnical and geological engineering practice which exists in Lake and Mendocino County at the time the report was whtten. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 290 Highland Ave. Reference: USGS, Ukiah Quadrangle Map Sca/e: 'i in = 2,080 ft Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Ave. Ukiah, CA Site Location Map Figure 1 Feb. 2003 N 300 Highland Scale: Horizontal only; I in -2,000 fcct Source: DeLorme 3-D Topo Quads, copyright 1999 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highlond Ave. Ukiah, CA Site Topography Oblique View 1X Vertical Exaggeration Figure 2 Feb~2003 N 290 Highland Avenue Scale: I in - 1.58 mile Source: DeLorme Xmap, copyright 2002 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Satellite Photo Figure 3 Feb~2003 '% 290 Highland Avenue Source: DeLorme Xmap, copyright 2002 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Oblique Satellite Photo Figure 4 Feb~2003 Scole: f in = 2000 ft N 160 Legend: 151 - Hopland-Wohly Loam Reference: Howard, R.F. And Roy H. Bowman, January 1991, Soil Survey of Mendocino County;, Eastern Part, and Trinity County;, Southwestern Part, California, Soil Conservation Survey, USDA Scale: I inch - 2000 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Soil Survey Map Figure 5 Feb~2003 290 Highland Avenue-- ._ North --I Legend: K Undivided Cretaceous Marine, Franciscan Complex mostly sandstone and shale. Source: Jennings, C.W. And R.G. Strand, "Geologic Map of California, Ukiah, Sheet", scale' 1 inch - 4 miles, California Division of Mines and Geology Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Engineering and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Regional Geology Map Figure 6 Jan~2003 ss &sh. LPgw LPgw 290 Highland Avenue L'Pgw brock<ed c~ra~nage t~ood 0o~ Gt Qoal: North Legend: Qaf Artificial Fill placed by grading operations Qc Colluvium, angular rock fragments, silt and sand sized matrix Qoal Older Quaternary Alluvium, moderately indurated deposits of sand, gravel and silt, Lpgw Lookout Peak Graywacke, interbedded graywacke and shale, Scale: 1 in=500ft Source: Sydnor, R.H. And J.A. Sowma-Bowcom, 1991, Landslides and Engineering Geol .ogy_. of the Western Ukiah Area, Central Mendocino County, California_, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 91 - 16 and Landslide Hazard Identification Map Number 24 Thomsen Consulting Engineers Soil Enginccring and Geology Lakeport, California 290 Highland Avenue Ukiah, CA Site Geology Map Figure 7 Jan~2003 I I I I i ! I I I i I ! I ! i i ! I I I I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I i ! i i ! I ! i Highland Avenue GRAEBER USE PERMIT 04-03 Response to Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff received two comment letters on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Letter No. 1 was signed and submitted by Fred Bellows, Catherine Indermill, Paulette Arnold, John and Joan Slonecker, and Bonnie Wildberger (hereafter referred to as the Bellows letter). Letter number 2 was signed and submitted by Mr. and Ms. Slonecker (Slonecker letter). LETTER NO. 1 Comment No. 1: The first comment from the Bellows letter focuses on providing a history of 290 and 300 Highland Avenue. The theme of the comment is that based on the authors understanding of the history of the parcel now owned by the applicant, it has been their understanding that the property is unbuildable because of yard setback requirements. Response: While this comment does not specifically cite or address the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and therefore does not require a response, Staff is compelled to note that legal lots of record are not necessarily considered unbuildable because of required development standards. Pursuant to the Ukiah City Code, a property owner may pursue a variance for deviating from development standards, and if successful may develop the property accordingly. Odd shaped, small or narrow lots such as the subject property, which are surrounded by larger parcels governed by the same zoning classification, are candidates for variances and can be approved provided all the required findings can be made. In conclusion, just because a narrow parcel is burdened by large yard setback requirements does not mean it is unbuildable. Comment No. 2: The second comment focuses on the present ownership of the subject property by Fred and Tami Graeber. No reference is made to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and therefore, no formal response is required. However, the last sentence states that "the continual removal of large oak trees, fruit trees and vegetation are a concern by all." Response: Staff shares the concern that trees and vegetation have been removed before development has been approved for the site, but notes that the City does not have regulations precluding tree and vegetation removal. Similarly, no permits are required to remove trees or vegetation. Comment No. 3: The third comment addresses the Environmental Setting section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff appreciates the author's perspective and observations of the environmental setting of the project site, and agrees that there are two drainage "ditches" that appear to handle run-off from the site. The comment that the trees on the upper portion of the site are actually on the neighboring property is noted for the record. Comment No. 4: This comment focuses on the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The author indicates that no soil test pits were dug in the "direct area of foundation planning." No concluding comment or objection to this apparent method of soil testing is made. However, it is assumed that the author believes that the soil testing method was inadequate and does not support the conclusion in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report adequately investigate the geology, soils and seismicity of the site. Response: Review of the technical studies prepared for the project, as well as the discussion and conclusions contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reveal that the professional Geotechnical Engineer conducted standard and routine soil tests for the proposed project. The location of the three test pits were strategically located to provide the engineer with an idea of the soil conditions on the entire site and immediate area. It is important for the engineer to have an understanding of the soil conditions of the approximate home site, as well as other areas of the parcel. The second test pit was dug approximately 15-feet from the location of the home site considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is noted that the applicants have recently submitted a modified Site Plan to shift the location of the house 10-feet closer to Highland Avenue, which places it approximately 5-feet from test pit number 2. All three test pits revealed similar soil conditions, which according to the engineer is common for this area, and was expected. The geotechnical engineer found these soil conditions to be adequate for foundation support for the proposed structure. Furthermore, the engineer stated in a conversation with Staff on September 8, 2004, that it is common engineering practice not to excavate soil test pits under where foundations are proposed, but rather in close proximity. This is to avoid placing a foundation on top of an area that has been rendered loose and uncompacted. In conclusion, Staff believes that the analysis, conclusions and findings regardin9 geology, soils, and seismicity contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are more than adequate, particularly given the fact that soil test pit number 2 was dug in the "area of foundation planning." Moreover, the geology and soils work performed on the site included a Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report prepared by a registered professional geotechnical engineer. His conclusion was that based on his site observations. subsurface investigation, and understanding of the proposed project, the subsurface soil on the site will provide adequate foundation support for the proposed structure. Comment No. 5: This comment focused on the Biological Resources - Plan and Animal Life section of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment makes the point that the statement that deer "occasionally frequent the site" was an understatement, because neighborhood observations reveal that deer frequent the site regularly. No conclusion comment is provided in terms of potential adverse impacts, although it is assumed that the author believes that as a result of the project, the deer will no longer regularly frequent the site, and that this represents a significant adverse impact. Response: Staff appreciates the neighborhood observation and additional information concerning the regular presence of deer on the project site. However, it is noted that the presence of deer on the project site and the potential loss of this small portion of their habitat, does not, in Staff's opinion, fulfill the significance criteria listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These criteria include the following: Substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g.burrowing owls); · Substantial effect upon sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; · Substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon Federally protected wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; · Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy or ordinance); In conclusion, and to reiterate, Staff does not believe, based on the above criteria that the potential loss of a small amount of deer habitat resulting from the project represents a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Comment No. 6: This comment focused on the Land Use section of the document. More specifically, the author addresses the yard and building setback requirements in the hillside zoning district, and concludes that these yard setbacks preclude the development of any structure on the site. The author also states that the proposed project would have a detrimental effect on the people residing in his home, because of "visual intrusion." Response: As discussed in the Comment No. 1 above, the Ukiah City Code allows a property owner to pursue a variance for deviating from development standards, and if successful may develop the property accordingly. Odd shaped, small or narrow lots such as the subject property, which are surrounded by larger parcels governed by the same zoning classification are candidates for variances and can be approved provided all the required findings can be made. In other words, if a small narrow legal parcel of record surrounded by larger parcels with the same zoning designation is essentially "unbuildable" with any structure because of the yard setback requirements, it would be a candidate for variance relief. The applicant has applied for the required variance for side and front yard setback relief. Whether or not the findings can be made for this specific request for the proposed residence remains unknown. Once environmental review is completed, an analysis of the project in light of the required findings will be conducted. Regarding the suggested detrimental visual impact (privacy invasion) resulting from the residence being closer than the required 30-feet from the side property line, Staff respectfully disagrees. The proposed residence is situated approximately 30-feet in distance and at approximately 10-feet below the author's residence in elevation. While the two residences will be visible to occupants in both homes, it is Staff's opinion, that the distance and elevation difference are comparable to other residence in the lower hillside area, such as on nearby Miska Place, and reduce potential "privacy invasion" to a level of insignificance. Comment No. 6' This comment focuses on the Utilities and Service Systems section of the document. Specifically, it indicates that the recent replacement of a utility pole and the placement of two new poles along Highland Avenue were done in violation of the hillside zoning ordinance because the ordinance requires utilities to be placed underground. The author also concludes that the utility poles "add to the fire load of the area due to their dryness and volume" and that they "pose a tremendous safety hazard to our firefighters..." Response: Staff contacted the Utilities Department, who confirmed that one existing pole was replaced and two new poles recently erected along Highland Avenue. However, as required, these poles were placed within the Highland Avenue public street right-of-way. This right-of-way is not located within the hillside zoning district, and therefore the placement of poles is not subject to the regulations of the hillside district. Extension of electrical service from the poles in the street right-of-way to the proposed new residence will be undergrounded consistent with the requirements of the hillside zoning regulations. Staff consulted with the Ukiah Fire Marshal, who indicated that he has no concerns about the poles, and disagrees that they represent a "tremendous safety hazard to our firefighters." Comment No. 7' (Closing Comments): This comment states that the author is of the opinion that the project would result in substantial adverse environmental concerns and that it should never have "reached this stage of the planning process." He also states that he believes that the applicant has received "preferential treatment" and that there has been a "complete breakdown in the entire process of a Major Use Permit as it equates to the Ukiah General Plan and Hillside Zoning." Response: As described in the text of this document, Staff disagrees that the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. No technical or factual information has been submitted to successfully dispute the findings and conclusions of the Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Reports. No technical or factual information has been submitted to substantiate the claim that the proposed project would adversely impact migration patterns of deer or habitats of rare and endangered animal or plant species. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not a "significant" invasion of privacy will result from the project. In terms of permit processing, the City has no legal authority to refuse to process a development permit application and/or disallow it to reach various stages in the planning review process. Development permit applications are processed, and when enough information has been submitted to fully understand the proposal, environmental review is conducted. Once environmental review is completed, the project is evaluated for its merits, which means a determination regarding General Plan compliance, and whether or not required findings can be made. The proposed project is currently nearing the end of the environmental review stage of the process. Staff is unsure what the author means by his claim that there has been "preferential treatment." We are equally unsure what is meant by the statement that there has been a "complete breakdown in the entire process of a Major Use Permit as it equates to the Ukiah General Plan and Hillside Zoning." As described above, the General Plan and zoning consistency analysis (findings) is the next task to undertake in the prescribed reviewed process. With all due respect to the author, it is our opinion that there perhaps has been a n;iscommunication regarding the steps in the planning permit review process. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE BELLOWS LETTER: The Bellows letter provides additional information about the historY and environmental setting of the project site. This information is useful and welcomed. Staff. respectfully disagrees that the proposed project will have significant adverse impacts on the environment or that there has been a "complete breakdown in the entire process..." On the contrary, the proposal has been processed according to the prescribed review steps, and additional time has been used to work with the applicant to redesign and re-site the development to reduce possible impacts on the neighborhood and to address neighborhood concerns. After substantial pre-application review, the project was formally submitted in January 2004. It has been in the planning process for 8-months, which is substantially longer than most applications. The project is an infill single family residential development on a narrow parcel in the lower hillside zoning district. All utilities are readily available, the site has been thoroughly examined by a geotechnical engineer, and the building designer has created a craftsman style streamlined design that steps down the hillside with a height ranging from 15-feet to 22-feet. Based on the information contained in the administrative record, as well as the information provided in the Bellows letter, Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project, as mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. LETTER NO. 2 Comment No. 1: The Slonecker letter focuses on drainage and hydrology. The authors are concerned that the drainage plans for the site are inadequate and would not properly handle the run-off from the site without impacting nearby properties along Highland Avenue and Clay Street. The applicants were required to submit a Drainage Plan, which was submitted in June 2004. This comprehensive plan was prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. The focus of the plan is to intercept and collect storm water run-off above the building site and route it away from the neighboring property to the north and the proposed residence, and into the storm drainage system along Highland Avenue. Numerous catch basins, valley gutters, and residential gutters/downspouts are proposed to accomplish this important task. The City Civil Engineers in the Public Works Department have reviewed the proposed Drainage Plan and visited the site, and have concluded that it represents standard engineering practices, is adequate, and will ensure the proper collection and disbursement of storm water run-off. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SLONECKER LETTER: Staff appreciates the concerns about drainage, and agrees that if not properly engineered, the plan for storm water drainage could fail on this property. However, a comprehensive Drainage Plan was prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, reviewed by the City's engineering staff, and found acceptable. Accordingly, Staff is able to conclude that storm water drainage has been properly and successfully addressed. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS: Based on the information contained in the administrative record, as well as the information provided in the Bellows and Slonecker letters, Staff is able to continue to conclude that the proposed project, as mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Mitigated Ne§ative Declaration is appropriate for the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2, Bellows Correspondence Slonecker Correspondence ent Mailed to letter submitters and applicant on September 9, 2004 August 20, 2004. ri'O:UKIAH CITY MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS UKIAtt PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMNT 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKLAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 RE: MAJOR USE PERMIT NO. 04-03 WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PUBLIC ttEARING HISTORY OF 290 AND 300 HIGHLAND AVE (FORMALLY WERT ST.) The formation of the lot referred to as 290 S. Highland took place prior to 1974. To form a separate parcel prior to that time all one need to do is draw a line and a separate parcel was created. This lot, APN 001-241-09, was owned at one time by the City, of Ukiah as an extension of Clay Street and also allowed access to the City water storage tank. This tank still exists under the Mannon residence at 260 S. Highland Ave. The storage tank was abandoned by the City of Ukiah probably sometime is the 1930's or 1940' s. The excess property was then sold Io the owners of 300 S. Highland and we speculate that this was for ingress and egress as Clay Street would not front the residence to the north. All of the old records indicate this property is a continuation of Clay St. hence the sixty foot lot width i.e. v, Sdth of Clay street. We do know that in 1964 the Caylor's sold the property to Kerber. Then in 1975 Kerber sold to the Mercers and the sale consisted of two separate parcels according to the recorded deeds. For several years the Smiths owned the property jointly with Gary Nix and John Bogner. Nix and Bogner then bought out the Smiths and owned the property for several years. Nix and Bogner also owrted and lived in 280 S. Highland for 18+/- years as their primary residence. The small house at 300 S. Highland was a rental unit. In JanualT. of 1998 Gary Nix and John Bogner sold 280 S. Highland Ave. to Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill. An inquiry into the possibility of selling the property at 290 and 300 S. Highland was made at that time. Bellows and Indermill were advised that the renter Paulette Arnold had first right of sale of the residence but the3' could have first refusal on the lot at 290 S. Highland. Furthermore, Nix/Bogner wanted to explore the possibility of building a house on the vacant lot. From November 1998 through the summer of 1999 negotiations by Paulette Arnold to purchase the residence commenced. Nix and Bogner proceeded to explore the possibility of building a residence on the vacant lot. Jim Ronco of Jim Ronco Consulting obtained the Certificate. of Compliance concerning the vacant lot APN 001-241-03 .s You will note the CAVEAT: "Recordation of this instrument does NOT indicate or imply that subject property, complies in an), respect with the zoning code of the City of Ukiah including, but not limited to requirements of said code with respect to lot area, street frontage or lot width ...... "Axt & Mitchell were retained for architectural consultation and planning. Coots & Associates prepared a survey of the lot showing topography and the average grade slope of the lot. There were discussions with the Building and Plam~ing Department about such a project but never any formal application. Nix and Bogner reached the conclusion that the professional fees for development could reach $30,000 with no guarantee of building. Last, but most important to overcome, the set back requirements in the hillside zoning were not favorable. They discontinued the project and offered the lot to Bellows and Indermill. Paulette Amould was unable to execute the purchase of the small house. The small residence had extensive termite problems along with extensive rot from moisture. Refurbishing and repairs on the house were estimated at between rift>,' and seventy., five thousand dollars. Bellows and Indermill contacted the building and planning department to ascertain the regulations for hillside zoning. They were given a copy of ~he existing hillside zoning Article 11. Regulations in hillside lot size (-H) Districts. Under section 9136 the minimum lot ,Mdth is 65 feet. The square footage of the lot in question is estimated at 17,000 sq. fi+. These dimensions appear to indicate an H-3 designation where the lot width is 100 feet and side setbacks are 15 feet. Furthermore, in section 9139 if the lot has an average parcel slope of 15 to 20 percent the minimum setbacks are "30 feet from all property lines and 30 feet from the ridge top or toe of the slope for gradient in excess of fifteen percent (15%)". We were advised that in all probability, a residence could not be built on this lot due to the setback requirements. It should be noted that at this time Bellows and Indermill did not have the knowledge that the average slope of the lot, as calculated by Coots and Associates, is 19.5%. Bellows and Indermill advised Nix and Bogner that they were not interested in purchasing the house and lot because the !or is not buildable due to the set back requirements in the hillside zoning regulations and there would be no need to protect the privacy of their unique residence. Nix and Bogner further advised that both parcels had to sell at the same time due to the trust deed on the properties. For obvious reasons Bellows and Indermill did not pursue the matter any further. The house and lot were listed by Nix and Bogner who are a licensed real estate broker and agent respectfully. PRESENT OWNERSHIP- FRED AND TAMI GRAEBER Approximately two years ago the Graebers purchased the properly and Pauleue Arnold continued as the tenant. In the summer of 2002 Arnold vacated the house and it sat vacant for several months. A few months ago a flurry of activity, was initiated on the small residence. The Building Department indicated that no permits had been issued for 300 S. Highland Ave. It appeared as if the entire inside of the residence was being guued. The building department refused to investigate the matter. They required a written formal complaint on their form. The appropriate form was completed and the necessary., building pert, nits were issued at a cost of around $400 dollars. ]'he work is continuing and the Graebers arc to be commended on the upgrading of the residence, ttowever, the continu~ removal of large oak trees, fruit trees m~d vegetation are a concern by all. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - MAJOR USE PEICMIT NO. 04-03 It should be noted that at no time has any employee of the City of Ukiah contacted the surrounding property ov,,~qers about this project. Furthermore, none of the professional services r,:~ained by Graeber have contacted any of the owners with the exception of one man who contact Wanda Marmon and wanted to know about the volume of water going through the 12" culvert under the Mannon's driveway... DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRON~vlENTAL SETTING: The opening page indicates that there are "no significant drainage features on the site, and the surface drainage is mostly generated on-site and sheet drains to the east onto Highland Ave." This project site is the Iow point for the surrounding hillside and the direct receiver of all water generated off-site. The 12 inch culvert from the Marmon residence produces a tremendous amount of drainage which is off-site. This water travels easterly and hits an outcropping of rock and diverts to the south and down the center of the lot in question. To the :¢outh of the project water is sheeted offofthe hill side and has made two distinct drainage ditches which do not appear to be man made. This accumulated off-site and on-site water then exits to the front of the lot and onto Highland Ave. Just by square footage alone there is more off-site generation of water than on-site. "There are some recently planted trees at the upper end near the western property line..." Please note that this landscaping is not on the subject property. This is an ongoing project of the Mannon"s for erosion, beautification and privacy. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION: "5. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Studv, the project will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse e~ects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." We do not agree with this assumption and feel the study is lacking in sufficient resources to make such an assumption. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY C. Subnfitted Soils and Geotechnical Reports: This report was prepared by Thomsen Consulting Engineers in Lake County. ~l'here were three test sites dug with a backhoe as indicated on the plot map. The site to the south is not on this lot. The other two are west of the building site and east of the building site. None of the test holes were dug in the direct area of foundation planning. The Graeber's initial house plan was to build across the back of both lots but a view corridor, height restriction from the Mannon residence and slope requirements precluded this site choice. The site selection changed after the soil site tests were taken and to our 'knowledge no other tests were conducted. 4. BIOLOGICAL tD-rSOURCES - PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE: A. Setting "Occasionally deer and other animals that live in the hillside area frequent the site." Bellows/Indermill have lived at this location for six plus years. Bmmie Wildburger has lived at 285 S. Highland Ave. since 1971. John and Jean Slonecker 1355 West Clay St. have lived there for four years plus. Charles and Wanda Mannon have resided at 260 S. Highland for three years plus. Since 1971 and before a family of deer ranging from four to eight use this lot for the ingress and egress to the rear of'the Wildberger property and forage to the rear of Marguerite Schwarm 231 S. Highland Ave. This usually occurs in the morning hours. Then in the afternoon the deer visit the Graeber parcels Md feed on the apple trees, other available vegetation and nap under the shade of the fruit trees that are left. Unprotected trees, vegetation and exotic plants have about a 24 hour life span. The so called deer proof vegetation has had mixed reviews in the neighborhood. 7. LAND USE' This entire report is void of the hillside zoning ordinance CItAPTER 2 ARTICLE 11. REGULATIONS IN HILL SIDE LO'I' SIZE (-H) DISTRICTS. One would surmise that this would be included in the 1995 Ukiah General Plan. This article and chapter were adopted by the City of U~ah in 1982. Several discussions have taken place with Associate Planner Brian Keefer who has handled this project. He has some reservation about this article and the interpretation of the setback requirements. There have been three discussions with Mr. Keefer by Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill. Following is our interpretation of those conversations: Section 9136 YARD AND BUILDING SITE REQUIREMENTS IN DESIGNATED - H DISTRICTS: ]'he building site area designates the H classification. The lot in question has 17,000 plus square feet of area which would seem to indicate H-3, but has been assigned as H-2 which requires 75 foot lot width the setbacks are one 6 feet and one 14 feet. Front and a rear of thin), feet. The lot is only 60 feet wide and has more than 15,000 feet of building site area. So is it H-3 plus with a 100 feet lot width side yards are 15 feet each and 35 feet front and rear?. Mr. Keefer could not answer this question and indicated Mr. Stump made this designation. Mr. Stump was on vacation for two weeks and not available for comment. Mr. Keefer did have an interesting comment about the fact that there are many of non-conforming lots in Ukiah and they are allowed to build on them. Well, "Do you allow a reduction in the set back limits to accommodate the building project? .... No, we can't do that." Section 9139 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Please refer to thc enclosed topography map wherein grade percentages were conducted by W.R. Coots, a licensed land surveyor, on July 29, 1999.This was at the request of Gao.' Nix and John Bogner and part of the disclosure information in the sale of the p~'operty to Graebers. The average slope of the lot is 19.5%. This puts the lot in the "15-20 Average Parcel Slope in % "calegory with a minimum lot size of 10,000 m~d 50 percent of the lot must be retained in natural state according to "A. Minimum Site and Development Standards". Further, subparagraph two states "2. Setbacks- Minimum thirty feet (30') from all property lines, and thirty feet (30') from ridge top or toe of the slope for~.radient in excess of fifteen percent (15%)" (emphasis added). Now with a lot sixty feet wide and a slope average of 19.5% the building site area is nonexistent. This is a nonconforming lot with setback restrictions that preclude any structure. To say that there are no mitigation measure with respect to the land use makes a sham and a farce out of the hillside zoning ordinance. Mr. Keefer has indicated that "We" are trying to take a common sense approach to the setback situation. Well, let's take that approach and see what we come up with. 280 S. Highland was built in 1960 and the minimum set back for the south property line and common with the lot in question is 25 feet. All other setbacks on the property go well beyond 25 Feet. The setbacks between Mannon, Bellows, Feibusch and the small house north of Feibusch all appear to be in this range. A six foot set back for a 2500 sq. ft. residence to the south of 280 S. Highland Ave. just does not make "common sense". We have invited Mr. Keefer and Mr. Stump to visit'the Bellows/Indermill residence. The house was built in 1960 and does not have a drape or window covering in the house. It is positioned and architecturally designed to preclude visual intrusion from the surrounding homes. The present project would have a detrimental effect on human beings residing in this residence. If this project is allowed to proceed the value of the Bellows/Indermill residence will be greatly affected. 14. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The electrical service to the present residence and project in question are interesting to say the least. The electrical service for 300 S. Highland is a drop service from the northwest comer of Clay and Highland. The present setup is a temporary type of utility, pole to the rear of the residence. It appears that the entire electrical system has been replac~ed with a new service box. Several weeks ago a new utility pole was placed south of the residence on Highland Ave. Section 9135 of the hillside regulations paragraph D. states "Ensure underground installation of utility wires and television lines;" The word ensure does not give one much wiggle room, i.e. make certain. Contact was made ~dth Cindy Sauers the Electrical Distribution Engineer for the City of Ukiah. Ms. Sauers had never heard of the hillside zoning ordinance and made a copy of the one furnished. She had a meeting with Mr. Stump and it was decided that this was an old hookup and did not come under hillside zoning requirements. The City has installed two new utility poles in the hillside zoning area to accommodate the NEW electrical hookup for 300 S. Highland Ave. Any new' hc)okups and especially 290 Highland Ave. will have to be underground. The residences in the hillside area Bellows/Indermill, Mannon, Feibusch and so on down . the street ALL have underground electrical. I-'he new utility poles are not only an eye sore but if one thing was learned in the Oakland Hills fires, put utilities underground. The poles add to the fire load of the area due to there dryness and volume. This posses a tremendous safety hazard to our firefighters for both fire load and electrical. CLOSING COMMENTS. With respect to the MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND DETEtLMINATION, we feel that there are substantial adverse environmental concerns and an outright denial to adhere to the hillside zoning requirements. This entire project should never have reached this stage of the planning process. One gets the feeling of preferential treatment and or a complete breakdown in the entire process of a Major Use Perm/t as it equates to the Uk/ah General Plan and the hillside zoning. In closing please keep in mind that this is a purely financial real-estate investment proposition. This lot/parcel has remained as a vacant property for centuries. To quote Mr. Fred Graeber as he was cutting down two large oak tress on April 12, 2004. Catherine Indermill requested that he wait until building permits were issued before cutting down any more trees, "I 'ye got a lot of money invested in the property, I've got to do something with it." The City of Ukiah and the surrounding property owners do not bear the burden of making it a profitable venture. We respectfully request that this Major Use Permit NO. 04-03 be denied and completely rejected by the Planning Commission and City Counsel. Cordially, Fred A. Bel~ws m Catherine Indsrmill- Owners 280 S. Highland Awe Pa;ulette Arnold-Owner 1130~Perkins St. John Slonecker Jean Slonecker-Owners 1355 W. Clay Street Btmi-fie Wildberge~- Owner 285 S. Highland Ave. / Enclosures: Certificate of Compliance - Land Division Topographical Map - 290 S. Highland AFTER RECORDIN(3, PLEASE RETURN TO CITY OF UKIAH Public Works Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 463-6200 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - LAND DIVISION (Subdivision Map AcK, Section 66499.35) City of Ukiah, State of California Acting at the request of Jim Ronco of Jim Ronco Consultino. suthori~zed Aaent of Gary L, Nix ~.qd John Bogner, propertY owners, pursuant to an executed letter of-~uth,~riz~tion dated Qct, gber 13,1997, the City of Uklah, pursuant to the provisions of Section 60499.35 of the Subdivision Map Act, and the City of Ukiah Subdivision Ordinance onacted pursuant thereto, HEREBY CERTIFIES: 1. That the real property situated in the City of Ukiah, California, County of Mendocino and particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof complies with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map act, in particular Section 6641 2.6 of said Act, and the City of Ukiah Municipal Code as of the date of issue' Said real property is located at 300 Hicihl~nd Avenue ~nd is the northerly 60 feet of Assessor Parcel Number 001-24!-03; and 2. 7'hat the issuance and recordation of this Certificate of Compliance h~s been duly authorized and approved by the City Engineer of the City of Ukiah. _CAVEAT: Recordation of this instrument does NOT indicate or imply that the subject property complies in any respect with the zoning code of tl',e City of Ukiah including, but not limited to requirements of said code with respect to lot area, street frontage or lot width. This cer,tificate relates oniy to issues of co~nplianc~ or ncncomp!iance with the Subdivision MaD Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. //~0~ClTY OF UKIAH /,,,'~/~_"' ~ ~'~ APPRO t!~(~ No. 318~0 '~',)~" Rick H. Kennedy, City Engineer EXHIBIT 'A' The most Southerly 60 feet of the following described property: COMMENCING at a point in said City where the South line of Clay Street if extended, wou~d intersect the West line of Highland Avenue, also known as Wurt Street, and running thence northerly along the West line of Highland Avenue 220 feet' thence at right angles Westerly 600 feet, more or less, to the West line cf Yokayo Rancho: thence Southerly following the West line of said Rancho to a point where the South line of Clay Street extended Westerly in its present direction would intersect such grant line' thence in a straight line Easterly 650 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed by deed executed by John J. Caylor et ux to Isabel F. Smith, dated November 5, 1956, recorded November 7, 1956 in. Book 446 of Official Records, Page 10, Mendocino County Records. A portion of Assessor Parcel Number 001-241-003 (northerly 60 feet). The above described parcel was created by the recordation of the Grant Deed from John J. Caylor and Ida Caylor, husband and wife to William H. A. Smith and Isabel F. Smith recorded on February 23, 1951 in liber 286 of Official Records, Page 174, Records of MendocJno County, in conjunction with the recordation of a Grant Deed from John J. Caylor and Ida Caytor, husband and wife, to Isabel F. Smith, recorded on November 7, 1956 in Book 446, Page 10, of Official Records, Records of Mendocino County Recorder. This parcel was created from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and has been lawfulty created pursuar~t to the provisirms of Section 66412.6 of the Subdivision Map Act. August 10, 2004 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ukiah, CA 95482 Re' Response to Posting on Lot 290 South Highland RECEIVED AUG I ,. 200 CITY O~ ~IKIAtt We wish to make comments on the subject lot and proposed home permit applied for by Dr. Fred Graber. Our concern for the building of a home on this lot is that the lot at 290 So. Highland is an extremely wet lot. During the winter rains the driveway runs full of water and drains down Clay Street. There is another point on the lot about half way bem'een the driveway and Fred Bellows driveway where the water pours over the bank and down Clay Street. Since we moved here the rain fall has been relatively low. In a wet year I imagine the water moving through that i~;t is considerable. We were told that drains were planned for the lot and and new home and we saw them on the plans. We were also told there was a storm drain on the road near the small yellow house---which there is, How'ever, this drain docs not take away any of the x~'ater we spoke of in paragraph one. In fact it doesn't look that this drain has worked for sometime. Sizeable drains ~nd adequate piping will have to be installed on the lot around the proposed house at 290 So. Highland to insure the lot has proper drainage. No storm water from this lot should be directed down Clay Street. It should be directed to the storm drain that runs along Highland. This storm drain needs to be examined and determined if it is capable df removing all the storm water that comes off this lot and adjacent lots that naturally drain to this lot. We are concerned that unless considerable engineering is done, the drains on the lot are correctly placed to take care of all the water during a heavy, rain )'ear, and a large ciD' storm drain is available to handle all the drainage from the lot (similar to the drain below Fred Bellows home) that the rains could affect property owners below the lot and create water problems in other areas of upper Clay Street. We understand there is a meeting scheduled before the City Council on August 25. We have had a vacation planned for sometime and will not be available until after August 27. We wanted to make our concerns known to the appropriate planning people that we are very concerned that the proper attention is paid to the water flow through this lot. P~ge Two We would be pleased to meet with appropriate staff that would guarantee that the ttydrology Report is sufficient and would assure us that our concerns ~'ill be satisfied by the City. and Dr. Graber. Sincerely, John & Jean Slonecker 1355 West Clay Ukiah CA 95482 462-5664 Major Variance 03-52 with Findings 1-3, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. Commissioner Puser commented regarding the parking issue, and stated the parking standards established in the UMC were applied to this project. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Puser, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Use Permit 03-52 with Findings 1-7 and Conditions of Approval 1-25 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 12, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. 8B. Graeber Major Use Permit 04-03 and Variance 04-40, to allow the construction of a 2,543 square foot craftsman style single-family residence with an attached three- car garage in the lower sinqle-family residential Hillside Zoninq District. The project also involves a Variance request to allow six-foot and fourteen-foot side yard setbacks where thirty-feet are required, and a twenty-foot front yard setback where thirty-feet is required. The property is located at 290 Highland Avenue, Ukiah. Planning Director Stump reported the applicant has proposed the infill single-family residential craftsman home be constructed closer to the property line due to the narrowness of the parcel width, as well as the large yard setback requirement of the Hillside Zoning District. The applicant seeks approval of the Major Use Permit for construction of the residence and a Major Variance for relief from the yard setback requirements. The applicant believes the proposed yard setbacks are warranted because the lot is only 60 feet wide, and the Hillside Zoning District requires 30-foot yard setbacks for property with an average slope of 15 percent. The project site is located on the edge of the lower Hillside Zoning District. The site is 60 feet wide, totals approximately 16,500 square feet, and the site configuration gives the appearance of a "bowl" shape. The applicant seeks the following proposed relief from the front/side yard setback requirements: Allow the residence to be located 20 feet from Highland Avenue as opposed to the required 30 feet to reduce grading and site disruption on the parcel and to reduce its impact on the neighbor to the north. Allow the residence to be located six-feet from the north side property line rather than the required 30-feet to facilitate the use of a curved driveway and avoid backing onto Highland Avenue. Allow the residence to be located 14-feet from the south side property line rather than the required 30 feet. Staff supported the concept of allowing for a Major Variance for the 20-foot front yard setback and two, 10-foot side yard setbacks rather than the proposed six-foot and 14-foot side yard setbacks. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for the proposed project to determine if it would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. The applicant submitted both a Geotechnical and Geological Feasibility Report and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report prepared by Thomsen Engineering to address the geology and soils of the site, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 September 22, 2004 Attachment # '~'/ which were also used by staff to understand and reach a conclusion about the geology and soils on the property. Landscaping and Drainage Plans were also prepared for the project by consulting engineers, which were used by staff to evaluate potential drainage impacts and other-related environmental project issues. Staff determined the project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on the geology and soils, if the recommendations of the geotechnical/soils engineer were not implemented. Furthermore, mitigated measures must be taken to control dust during site preparation and construction activities. Staff determined the night lighting from the proposed residence could adversely impact neighboring property owners if the lighting fixtures were not directed away from adjoining properties and the night sky. Therefore, a final Landscaping Plan and Lighting Plan must be submitted for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Staff identified reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that would effectively offset any adverse impacts. Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Mr. Stump addressed the project issues and neighborhood concerns as follows: > Drainage The neighboring property owners were concerned that the drainage plans for the site were inadequate and that the proposed drainage improvements would not properly handle the run-off from the site, causing impacts to nearby properties along Highland Avenue and Clay Street. The primary focus of the comprehensive Drainage Plan concentrated on how to effectively intercept and collect storm water runoff above the building site and route it away from the neighboring property to the north and proposed residence, and into the storm drainage system along Highland Avenue. The task can be accomplished by implementing numerous catch basins, a valley gutter, and residential gutter/downspouts. The City Public Works Department concurred that the Drainage Plan would adequately and effectively collect and disburse storm water runoff from the subject property. > Soils Investigation The neighboring property owners were concerned that no soil test pits were dug in the "direct area of foundation planning," concluding the soil testing method was inadequate. The Geotechnical Engineer conducted routine standard soil tests for the proposed project. Three test pits were strategically located to provide the consulting engineer with an idea of the soil conditions. Test pits were created for the home site, as well as for other areas of the parcel. A second test pit was dug approximately 15-feet from the location of the home site considered in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The applicant submitted a modified Site Plan to shift the location of the house 10-feet closer to Highland Avenue, placing it approximately 5-feet from test pit number 2. The three tests indicated similar soil conditions for site, and the geotechnical engineer found these soil conditions to be adequate for foundation support. It is customary not to excavate soil test pits in close proximity to the future location of a foundation in order to avoid placing the foundation near or on top of an area that has been rendered loose and uncompacted. > Invasion of Privacy The neighboring property owners to the north were concerned that the location of the structure would significantly invade their privacy. While staff does not necessarily agree that a significant invasion of privacy would result, it is apparent that the six-foot side yard setback is out of character with the side yard setbacks of other properties in the immediate vicinity. Staff recommended the residence be more MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page $ September 22, 2004 Attachment # -- centrally located on the site and the side yard setbacks be 10-foot to accommodate the curved driveway. This recommendation would involve shifting the residence four-feet to the south, allowing the side yard setback to be more compatible with other developed hillside parcels in the area. > Developability of the Parcel Concerns were expressed regarding the developability of the subject property because of the narrow parcel size and the large setbacks proposed. The UMC allows a property owner to pursue a variance for deviating from the development standards, provided the corresponding findings can be successfully met. Variances can be considered for odd shaped, small or narrow legal parcels of record that are surrounded by larger parcels governed by the same zoning classifications. Consequently, the applicant applied for the required variance for front/side yard setback relief. Mr. Stump briefly commented on staff's analysis of the front/side yard setback variances as follows: :~ Front Yard Review of the properties in the area demonstrated that many single-family residences are located approximately 20-feet from the right-of-way. Also, there are existing or approved garage structures with a 20-foot front yard setback. Staff was unable to identify any detrimental impacts to surrounding property owners that would result from the structure being 20-feet from the Highland Avenue right-of- way, as opposed to the standard 30-feet required. The granting of the front yard variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. Side Yard Setbacks Sufficient space would not be available if the two 30-foot side yard setback requirements were applied to the 60-foot wide parcel. Other neighboring parcels under the same zoning classification do not present this development constraint because they average 110-feet in width, and none are less than 80-feet. Staff concluded that the proposed six-foot side yard setback for a residence in the area would be out of character, and therefore, potentially a grant of special privilege. The alternative approach would be to issue a conditional variance to avoid the grant of special privilege. This condition would require the two side yard setbacks to be 10- feet rather than six and 14-feet. Staff concluded the findings made for Major Variance listed on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report adequately support the necessary relief that would allow two, 10-foot side yard setbacks for the proposed residence, and therefore, supported approval of the Major Variance. Additionally, staff concluded the residence with the Variance as conditioned, would not have a significant adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding property owners and/or general public, and therefore, recommended approval of the Use Permit. A general discussion followed regarding the property owners to the north (Bellows/Indermill) and the applicant and their agreement to preserve and properly maintain existing trees between the two properties. Commissioner Jennings inquired as to the property owner legally responsible for repairs in the event a tree on the adjoining property falls onto the new residence. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 A,. September 22, 2004 TTachment Cf_ ,.~'"~:,,~ Mr. Stump replied this is a legal question that an attorney should probably answer. Commissioner Puser referred to Condition of Approval No. 33, and emphasized the importance of an arborist determining whether a tree requires pruning, as well as doing the work. It was determined that the front door of the proposed residence would face south with the attached garage abutting Highland Avenue. The driveway would wrap around from the south to the front portion of the garage, as demonstrated on the site plans. Commissioner Puser inquired regarding staff's recommendation concerning the 10-foot side yard setbacks, and whether it would be 16 feet from the new house to the Bellows' new garage. Mr. Stump replied affirmatively. Commissioner Puser requested clarification whether the new residence would be slightly lower in elevation than the adjacent property to the north. She inquired whether other similar circumstances occur in the neighborhood, in terms of determining whether a project development would be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Mr. Stump replied affirmatively, and stated, in staff's opinion, a detriment would be constituted if the applicant's house were situated to look down upon the Bellows. He acknowledged that some homes in the vicinity are situated slightly above other homes in the hillside area. He stated the Bellows would be able to look down on the applicant's home. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:22 p.m. Fred Graeber, Applicant, stated the subject property involves two lots, one of which has been developed with a small cottage that was recently renovated and the other lot is the location for his new residence. He addressed the Hillside Ordinance revisions that have been the topic of many discussions by staff, concerned citizens, and the Planning Commission, noting the final document has not been approved as new and unique situations occur. The Ordinance Regulations became more of an issue relative to development in the western hillsides during the time when he was considering such development. He stated the existing Regulations do not provide for an upper and lower hillside, and the Ordinance allowed for 30-foot yard setbacks on all four quadrants of a lot. He addressed the property constraints in terms of the steep grades and the "bowl" contour that were evaluated to appropriately design a site plan that would be compatible with the property and neighborhood. He briefly addressed the front/side yard setback issue, stating seeking relief from the setback requirements was his only option to make his project work. Fred Bellows stated he is the property owner to the north, and has been concerned about the development since the beginning planning phase. He considered purchasing the subject property, but decided not to because of the potential issues involved with development. The potential for the invasion of privacy is his primary concern with the proposed development. He stated, in his opinion, the project is not consistent with other developments in the neighborhood. He supported the residential architectural design with the exception of the proposed garage and the accompanying deck on top of the structure. Although the staff report makes reference to, "lower hillside zoning and lower Hillside Zoning District," he noted MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! 0 September 22, 2004 Aftachment # ~-'- the proposed revised Ordinance Regulations do not specifically provide for a "lower and upper" zoning district. There is only hillside zoning; consequently, property can only be labeled as being located in the lower or higher portion of the hillside. He did not support the project because the development does not complement the site. He pointed out the site has many development constraints, stating the drainage issue requires particular consideration. Chair Mulheren commented shared driveways are now considered fairly common practice for developments. He stated constructing the deck on top of the garage on the front side of the house facing Highland Avenue and Clay Street would appear to be less instructive to the adjoining neighbor to the north than if the deck were located in the back of the house facing the adjacent residence. Mr. Bellows observed the proposed square footage of the house is large making it problematic to develop the site due to the steepness of the slope and Ordinance compliance requiring that 50 percent of lot must remain in a natural state. Chair Mulheren requested clarification that Mr. Bellows had the opportunity to purchase the lot. Mr. Bellows replied affirmatively, noting he determined the purchase of the property would not be economically feasible for him relative to the anticipated property constraints. John Sloneker stated he resides on Clay Street in the vicinity of the proposed project, commenting the amount of water runoff coming from the site is substantial in the winter. He consulted with the City Engineer regarding the proposed Drainage Plan for the project and he was assured the drainage issue would be managed adequately. He commented on the type of pipeline proposed to control the water runoff from the property, as well as the systematic method for appropriately diverting the water into the City storm drain. He expressed concerned as to whether the runoff can be effectively captured since the water also comes from the hillside above and other surrounding areas. He questioned whether all elements of the proposed revised Hillside Ordinance Regulations have been adequately evaluated, noting, for instance, confusion exists regarding a lower and upper hillside division. He emphasized the importance that the Plan have the necessary guidelines applicable for afl types of hillside development pertaining to allowed/permitted uses, required site area, engineering geologic reports to establish minimum elements for slope stability evaluation, hydrology, soil conditions, potential for erosion, vegetation/landscaping issues, access/parking, water and fire protection, sewage disposal, utilities, architectural and design elements, discretionary review requirement procedures, and factors specifically delineating when relief from the hillside development standards is warranted. In other words, modifications to the Plan should not be made on a case-by-case basis. The Ordinance Regulations must be flexible and possess harmonizing qualities in order to protect the environmental aspects of hillside development, as well as the rights/desires of the property owners. He was in favor of the fact that the applicant intends to live on the site and that the appropriate development responsibilities would be adequately addressed. He recommended policy changes/variations to the Hillside Ordinance Regulations concerning hillside developments be implemented for the right reasons. Mr. Stump stated the Hillside Regulations have been in existence since 1982, and these Regulations were applicable to the Hull-Piffero project. The Regulations are currently being revised as new and unusual circumstances/issues arise concerning hillside development. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! ! Se te b He advised that staff is evaluating whether a lower and upper hillside division is necessary. It is not currently a component of the existing Regulations. Karen Rosen stated she has lived on West Clay Street for many years. She has observed the problems associated with water runoff onto Clay Street from the hillside areas and from the area where the new house would be located. She questioned whether the water can be appropriately captured and successfully diverted to the proper drainage facilities. She recommended policy/plan changes be made for important reasons and not on a case-by- case basis to correspond with an applicant's specific need. She acknowledged that the applicant has the right to develop his property. She argued, however, the specific needs and/or relief from the setback requirements should not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood nor be allowed to set precedent for policy changes. She commented that perhaps a "freeze on housing development" would be appropriate when the applicable policy is vague, requiring reevaluation. She supported the concept of building a house on the site, but, in her opinion, its too large for the lot. A brief discussion followed regarding homes built in the immediate area, requiring conformance with the 20-foot front yard setback requirement in place at the time. Mr. Stump stated the Draft Revised Hillside Regulations do provide for a lower and upper level division, and clarified the staff report does not reference a lower hillside, but that the proposed project exists in the lower portion of the hillside district. He addressed the drainage issue, stating the civil engineer staff of the City Public Works Department affirms that the development of the parcel would actually improve, as well as correct the drainage problems in the area. Catherine Indermill stated she is also the owner of the house to the north. She stated that even with the proposed side yard setbacks the lifestyle for her and her husband would be intruded upon. She did not favor approval of the project. A general discussion followed regarding the natural beauty of the lot, and the need to apply development standards that would complement the site and surrounding neighborhood. Mike White stated he would be the project general contractor should the project be approved. He noted a considerable amount of time and effort has been devoted to making the project architecturally pleasing and compatible with the site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Jennings stated engineering consultants performed analyses concerning the site issues of soil, erosion, hydrology, and drainage, and the applicant paid those engineers to conduct the studies. The City Engineer has reviewed the various studies and agrees with their conclusions. He supported approval of the project. He commented on the issue of privacy, stating, in his opinion, the impact may not be as great as anticipated with the entertainment area constructed on top of the garage, actually being closer to Highland Avenue than the adjoining neighbor's deck to the north. He acknowledged, however, the windows planned for the north side of the house would face directly to the windows of the house to the north. He stated drapes could privacy when necessary. Commissioner Edwards commented that while the issue of privacy and lifestyle is very important, people should not expect to live their entire lives in a home without experiencing MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! 2 S,eptemb,er ~2, Affocnmen, ~ some impacts on their lifestyle. She cited increased traffic and other relevant impacts over which people have no control. She said it was difficult to justify making discretionary review decisions based upon what she considers to be "somewhat minor" impacts to lifestyle. Commissioner Puser stated she favors certain project components such as application of the infill concept for the project. However, she did not favor approval of the project because the size of the house is too large for the parcel. Chair Mulheren agreed with the general contractor that the applicants have carefully designed a site plan to fit the lot. He supported the proposed Variance for the front/side yard setbacks, noting people frequently build houses on lots next door to other houses. He did not agree that the project would be an invasion of privacy concerning the house to the north. He favored approval of the project. Commissioner Puser questioned whether she would be allowed to support approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration even though she did not support approval of the Variance/Use Permit. Mr. Stump replied affirmatively. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for Major Variance 04-40 and Major Use Permit No. 04-03 with Findings 1-4, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. Mr. Stump recommended modification to a portion of Finding No. 3 concerning the side yard setback variance that reads, "However, the issuance of A Variance for a 10-foot side yard setback along the northern property line would not be constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because the immediate parcel to the north, as well as the small residence on the adjoining parcel to the south have 10-foot side yard setbacks, be amended to read, "However the issuance of a Variance for a 10-foot side year setback along the northern property line would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical regulations because nearby parcels to the north (Eversole at 1227 Myszka and Casazza at 1207 Myszka), as well as the small residence on the adjoining parcel to the south have 10-foot side yard setbacks." The intent for the aforementioned finding modification is to reiterate that the proposed six-foot side yard setback is not supportable and that the 10-foot side yard setback would be acceptable, and not constitute a grant of special privilege. Commissioner Puser recommended modification to Condition of Approval No. 33 to require that an arborist actually do the pruning work if he/she conducts the tree assessment. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. Mr. Stump recommended the addition of a Condition of Approval No. 42 to preclude construction between October 15 and April 1 of a given year that reads, "The grading and other site preparation activities on the site should be limited to the periods between April 1 and October 15 of any year. Short-term grading/site preparation activities may be permitted MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! 3 September 22, 2004 Attachment # ~ during this period provided the City Engineer determines the subject property is dry enough to permit such activities and that such activities will not extend into anticipated wet-weather periods." ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, it was carried by the following roll call vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Use Permit No. 04-03 with Findings No. 1-12 (modified to No. 3 as discussed above) and Conditions of Approval 1-42 with modification to Condition of Approval No. 33, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. AYES: NOES: Commissioners Jennings and Edwards and Chair Mulheren Commissioner Puser . ONGOING EDUCATION Schwarzeneqcler Le.qalized New Urbanism, Jeff Quackenbush, Staff Reported, North Bay Business Journal, September 13, 2004. The aforementioned publications are for the Commissioners' review. 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Stump encouraged the Commissioners to attend planning seminars when possible. He reported the Sign Ordinance revisions should be ready for review by the Commission in October 2004. He reminded the Commission that the Joint Meeting with the City Council is scheduled for September 29, 2004, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. He briefly provided an update on staff's recruitment for an Associate Planner and Code Compliance Coordinator. 11. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS A general discussion followed regarding completion of the trees planted to screen the parking lot of the new addition approved for the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. Associate Planner Lohse advised that the parking lot could later be utilized for additional buildings, making it less cost effective to plant trees in an area that may eventually be developed. Commissioner Puser inquired whether staff had the opportunity to look at the parking lot on Spring Street developed by Trinity School. Mr. Lohse stated staff would review this matter. Commissioner Jennings inquired whether the 42 Conditions of Approval imposed for the Graeber project would apply to every hillside development project. Mr. Stump replied this is a possibility, depending upon the site and development circumstances/project issues. A general discussion followed regarding the issue of building large homes on sites having a limited amount of buildable space, citing, as an example, the Perkins Street Chevron Station project was not allowed to build the restaurant because the site was too small. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page ]4 September 22, 2004 Attachment # ~ 9135: HILLSIDE LOT SIZE OR-H DISTRICTS: A Hillside Lot Size (-H) District may be combined with any district or portion of a district defined in this Chapter. The Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts may be of different designations as indicated by a numerical suffix. The regulations contained in this Article, and the regulations governing any district which is combined with a Hillside Lot Size (-H) District where not inconsistent with the regulations set forth in this Article, shall apply in Hillside Lot Size (-H) Districts. The purpose of this Section is to implement the Hillside designation of the General Plan and provide site standards to promote fire and geologic safety, and aesthetic qualities. The intent of this District is to: A. Encourage concentration of dwellings and other structures by clustering and/or high rise to help save larger areas of open space and preserve the natural terrain; Bo Encourage the planning, design, and development of building sites in such a fashion as to provide the maximum in safety and human enjoyment while adapting development to, and taking advantage of, the best use of the natural terrain; C. Prohibit, insofar as is feasible and reasonable, padding or filling of building sites in the hillside areas; D. Ensure underground installation of utility wires and television lines; E. Preserve outstanding natural physical features, such as the highest crest of a hill, natural rock outcroppings, major tree belts, etc; F. Minimize grading and cut and fill operations consistent with the retention of the natural character of hill areas; G. Minimize the water runoff and soil erosion problems incurred in adjustment of the terrain to meet on-site and off-site development needs; Ho Achieve land use densities that are in keeping with the General Plan; densities will decrease as the slope of the terrain increases in order to retain the significant natural feature of the hill areas. (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982) Attachment ITEM NO. 7c AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURES OVER FIFTY YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 308/3'10 EAST PERKINS STREET, UKIAH SUMMARY: The owner of the property located at 308/310 East Perkins Street has applied for a Demolition Permit to demolish the structures on the site. Demolition of the structures is desired as the first step in redeveloping the site. The structures currently house retail businesses and a warehouse, and both are over 50 years old. According to the Ukiah City Code, the City Council must conduct a public hearing to review and consider the historical and architectural significance of the structure before a Demolition Permit can be issued. On October 26, 2004, the City Demolition Permit Review Committee considered the application and Historical Profile prepared by Judy Pruden (attached), and found that two of the criteria in Ukiah City Code 3016(E) (attached) applied, and therefore deemed the structures historically significant. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 3) approve the Demolition Permit based on the finding that as mitigated, the impact of demolishing the structures will be reduced to a level of insignificance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, do not approve the Demolition Permit, and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: The project was publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code Requested by: Marin Ventures and Jing and Rosita Quan, Property Owners Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Historical Profile (Pruden) 3. Demolition Permit Review Committee Minutes, Dated October 26, 2004 4. UMC Section 3016(E) 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration APPROVED~_~, J Cand-~c'~e Horsley, City Ma~er UMC Section 3016 (E) Criteria 1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or The Demolition Permit Review Committee found the subject buildings to be the oldest commercial structures on East Perkins Street. 2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or The Committee found that the buildings exemplify and are part of the unique railroad/industrial complex in this location, which includes the adjacent historic railroad depot site to the south. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Rather than recommend denial of the Demolition Permit, the Committee worked with the property owner to identify reasonable and feasible mitigation measures to off-set the impact of demolishing these historically significant structures. These measures include the following: . Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby area. , Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "story- board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. 3. The site and buildings shall be thoroughly photographed and documented. Accordingly, Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is recommending that the City Council adopt the environmental document and approve the Demolition Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends supporting the Demolition Permit Review Committee's recommendation: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 3) approve the Demolition Permit. ® ® I.l.f ' 141' I ! Perk]ns Street ® SUB3ECT PROPERTY RAZLROAD DEPOT PROPERTY \ Attachment M'E'M'O'R'A'N'D'U.M DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 26, 2004 Charley Stump, Director of Planning Judy Pruden, Chair Demolition Permit Review Committee 308- 310 EAST PERKINS STREET This parcel was part of the original Perkins family ranch. A portion of the ranch was subdivided in 1868 into 13 residential lots and became Ukiah's first subdivision. With the development of the Railroad in 1889, the areas next to the tracks became desirable commercial tracts. The Ukiah Farmers' Club (U.F.C.) redeveloped this property. The U.F.C. was a unique cooperative association that was composed of 250 local farmers and ranchers. The door of the U.F.C. opened July 1912, offering substantially discounted prices in groceries, hardware, feed, lumber, and general warehousing. From the beginning the U.F.C. was a financial success. The planing mill produced numerous building components including doors, windows, and siding. Salvage from pre-World War II buildings commonly has U.F.C. written on the back or the side of the building pieces. The U.F.C. main store was leveled in a spectacular fire in 1948, leaving only the planing mill and lumber shed. The U.F.C. chose to disband and not to rebuild. The property was sold to the Trombetta family, who opened a distributing beverage warehouse in the old planing mill building in May 1949. The Trombetta family was well-known in northern California and this was their third branch. The property has had numerous expansions and additions over the years, especially from 1968 to 1971. This property is still in use with a video store in the 1912 planing mill. The east and north sides of the building are covered in corrugated tin, which indicate it is an older building and older "Ukiahians" still refer to the video store as the planing mill. The south and west elevations have had numerous plywood facades nailed to the original buildings. Commercial properties along the Railroad 'line in Ukiah have not been architecturally significant buildings. They are utilitarian structures oriented for use of railroad sidings. However, the local canneries and warehouses have Attachment Page 1 vernacular style, which is appealing for their rustic looks and age patina. They are large buildings that'remind the Community of its agricultural roots and linkage to the Railroad era. 308-310 East Perkins Street has this same historical context. The significance of this complex is primarily in its continuity of use for 92 years, as well as being the oldest commercial building on East Perkins Street. This site and old planing mill have significant historical context to the City of Ukiah. Affachment # Page 2 ~Zd- Affachment # .. · ~'.,~ 0 ~ ~ -.' ~ ~ ~_~.~o~'= ~~'~~.~ ~.~~ . ~:. ~ ...~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ! ~-I' . ~ ~.~u.'-:' '"' ~' ....... ~: ~... ~ ~ ..... . . .. .~;~ ..... . ~. -;~:~:~:~: ..... ',: -~ ~::~ ........... ~.. ~ :,~,:~'. ,.~e:~.;~~ ~:~'~.~ ~.:':':'L~ '.:.:.... .~:.~:~'~ S~;;' ..:~:.~iJ~[~' F;,i~4~ ~" ~' · '~?~'~('t..': .... ~ /~:::~ ~ :~'[' ~ ~:~::' ~:~ ........ ~:l:l:l:t:~:~ ~ ~'. ~] '~: DJ~ ~t(~ ''~ ~" "*'" '~": ' .......... . ................ ~..~ ............... :~.~ ~ ~ ,~:.:~ ,, . ..... ..... ..... . ....... ..~.....,.... ~ - I .".. ' ...... ~:? ~ v.'. - '~: .~:~ce- . -.~.. I ~ ..... ,.:-~::::*':':'~' ~" ~ ....... ~:~::':~:~:::~ ! ................................................· .................... ~-.~..c-:-:.:.:-..:c.:.x+:.:-:: 2~":':'"~;':':':':':':':':'~S:'"':~.:-.'~ itS. ~ . .¢:~.:-:.".'.'-'-:::::...'~.~:::S:::.:..:...:.:.:.:ce~:.~(.. ~::.. ,:~.~:~... ~>..:.x.:~..:.c ...... .:¢-¢.:-.:.x..~:.x.-~':'.}~'t':':':':'.--:..¢.'.~¢-:..'.:-:.:.:.:..v~x · ...'c.:.:.' ":~.'.::+ :~:c.:.:-.c...'-:-:':.:.:.v.:.::~$~:~:~:::-~"~.. :<-.~" =================================================================================== 'c ::':':~' '~' ~:~::' :+:':'::aT' .~:~:S~ ~.~ ...... . ............................................... . ................................. : .......... ~%.:~:.:~.~ ,:.~::.. ..~:::.~.~:::~.~, ..~:,.. ~ . :.~ :.:~:::::: .::..:.:~ ........ ~ ........... ~(~, , ,~,:::: ~: ~,- · :~:..:~...f,~.~,.::.~.:~. ~., ~..'.: .... ...:..,:":'"':'+:.-:.'*:-:.~1~):.:+~.~:~ ,~-:~: .-.~:. · -'-~!,-"~ ~Ce~., '.~'.~:- ~ · ::~:::' ~ c:+. :.- ===================================== ~.' . ~.:8~. ~'~t~2: ~::::~~:s ::~:(~'< ~ ~:~:~:. . . ~::~ ............. ::~:~::::~:.:~::.:: ............... ~. ~ :~: ~ ~ ~.:~. ~ ..... ::~ ...... : ........ ... ;c::~:::' .x,x.:. - .:. ~c. c.:::: ::.' ~.! ~ ..., ~ ~:~:~E:~:~;:.:-.. ~.....::~ '.' x ...:.-' ::~:., : ..... _.-.:.~, · ~ ' .~::f.::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: .....,,.:.::::::: :::::.' :f: ~:f~:E:::~:' .: ' "~'~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: · · ~ '. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . ~ ~. '-~c~::~l~:~:~ . · ~ I ~ ~.~:,:::::,, ...... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......... ::, ........ ~ :;." . ' .~(.;t~:.~':c..~:~'(~: ~ ~ · .,~ ...... ~ '..:~ ~.:~, ~ : ~::~:..'~ ~.~ ' .'~ .... :.. ~ ..... ~ ,' O~ ~ ~ ~. -~ ~.~. shipped from this building. Further up the tracks, on the west side at the end of Clay Street, is the 1923 Holzhauser warehouse. North of Perkins Street was Ukiah's first fruit precooler. Built in 1944, the precooler revolutionized the fresh fruit industry, making it possible to extend the storage life of fruit for longer periods. This building received a second life when it was rehabilitated in 1985 and named Railroad Center. Directly to the east was the Ukiah Farmers Club, a cooperative that also became a major supplier of construction materials in pre-World War II Ukiah. At the inter. section of Clara and Mason streets (on the south- west corner), is the 1904 Grace Bros. Ice Plant building. On the northeast corner is the site of the Ukiah Brewing Company, established in 1907, and famous for its Mendocino Lager label. In 1920, this Above: 305 East Perkins - The railroad depot, built in 1929. This Colonial Revival style building was Ukiah's third depot. The last passenger service was in 1942. Photo circa 1940's. · Below: East Perkins Street, east side of tracks, looking north. This photo is a good example of the businesses around the railroad yard, taken about 1912. The Farmer's Club burned in 1948, but the planing mill building still stands at 310 East Perkins. company became the Ukiah Ice & Soda Works. Further north, up the tracks at Brush Street, the French American Wine Company built a winery in 1911. Also erected were five 20,000-gallon storage tanks in which wine was held prior to shipping. 17 Attachm Atfachment # Z- ~ D~.lv.i.~' (:~mmc:I'c.i. tll I",~tc:v~:.l.t;pu~l.i.u ~1; LI~e Pacific Southwest Californ:i.a, Nevada, tJtah & Arizona 1915 Pg. 827 ed, Ukiah, Mendocino _ A. BERNHARD, Manager of the Farm-. ers' Club, Incorporat- County, California, occupies a leading l)OSil[on ill Illc lnos[ unique co-operative association to be found in Northern California. The Ukiah Farmers' Club is com- posed of 250 farmers and ranch- ers who have banded together in order to secure the necessary sup- plies at reasonable prices. In July, 1912, with. Mr. Bernhard as Manager and Secretary of the Board of Directors', they opened their business and storerooms at Railroad and Perkins Street, operating five distinct departments: gro- ceries, hardware, feedstuffs, lumber and general warehousing. At the present time the business property comprising the b0ilding, 50 by 200 feet with'an ell 50 by 90 feet, a planing mill ,and lumber sheds and yard, is valued at $17~500. In July, 1914, the entire stock on hand inventoried $26,000. The average amount of gross income from. the mercantile departments of the business is now $9,700 a month. .Mr. Bernhard was born at Franklin, Pennsylvania, on August 12, 1872. His home was made there'but a short time and he'received his education at. Holton; Kansas, grad,u, ating in 1894 from the Campbell Normal University. Mr. Bernhard s life' work had been devoted to teaching until he was called up to assume charge of the farmers"vast' enterprise. In 1896 he came to California and was an instructor in the University of the Pacific at San Jose, the Stockton Business College, the Siskiyou CountY High School and the Ukiah High School for eight years, in the commercial departments. In 1897 he married Miss Nettle Evans, a native of Kansas, and they have one daughter and one son. Fraternall3 he is affiliated with the Independent Order of Foresters. The Farmers' Club was first organized as a social institution and comprised an initial membership of about I00 persons. It remained in this form for tw.o years and' might still have been a mere social organiza- tion had it not been for the hostility of the merchants of this city dii'ected against Mr. Bernhard in. his cal~acity as a teacher in the public schools because of his affiliation and leadership in the organization. Thrown out of employment as a teacher Mr. Bernhard organized ihe club as a commercial institution, it being incorporated in December, 191 I, for $25,000. Extraordinarily high retail priCes had long been grinding upon the 'farmers and they believed that a co-operative institution would enable them to secure their necessities at a cost slightly above wholesale prices. Attachment #_ ~--7 (Con ' t. ) DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING October 26, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT Judy Pruden, Chair William French Dave Lohse alt. for Carl Tuliback Tim Eriksen alt. for Diana Steele Charley Stump Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Carl Tuliback Diana Steele OTHERS PRESENT Rob Simonds Grant Leschin Russ Tow The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Demolition Review was called to order by Chair Pruden at 2:00 p.m. in the Conference Room 3, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES' July 15, 2004 ON A MOTION by Member French, seconded by Member Lohse, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the July 15, 2004 minutes, as submitted. 4. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience was present. 5. APPEAL PROCESS There is no formal appeal process of decisions made by the Committee. decisions are advisory to the City Council. All 6. DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Al Demolition of building at 308 and 310 East Perkins Street. Assessors Parcel No. 002-193-21, Jing Quan Chair Pruden stated her Memorandum dated October 26, 2004, outlines the historical evaluation of the subject property. She referred to the Sanborn Map for the years 1929 to 1950 that demonstrates the layout of the site. It shows the beverage storage company that was once housed in the old planing mill. The planing mill and lumber shed were the two structures that survived the 1948 fire. The Sanborn Map for the years 1911 to 1918 also shows the Ukiah Farmers' Club (U.F.C.), planing mill and lumber sheds. The staff report includes historical documentation pertinent to the president of the U.F.C., as well as pictures of the Attachment # .~ - / Demolition Permit Review ' " Page 1 October 26, 2004 site and the Railroad depot as it appeared in 1912. She included information on the Trombetta family, who owned the property for a substantial period of time. Chair Pruden indicated the building has housed numerous businesses and continues to operate in a retail/commercial capacity. Storage facilities currently exist on the site in the area where Real Goods was formerly housed. She stated the building is the oldest one in the area. The building possesses a strong "historical context." However, the building has a "weak architectural context." Most of the older industrial buildings in the area do not have strong architectural features. They have some charm in the fact that they are rustic looking and the age patina makes them attractive. Chair Pruden stated the planing mill provides historical significance to the City of Ukiah. She recommended the Committee discuss this issue, as there are varying degrees of significance. Measures can be taken to successfully mitigate and partially preserve buildings having historical significance. Member Stump commented the property has an interesting history and thanked Chair Pruden for the information. He agreed the site has historical value, especially since this commercial property is located near the Railroad depot. Moreover, the industrial/commercial uses that existed on the site in the early 1900s in conjunction with the Railroad era added to Ukiah's historical theme. It was noted the Railroad was developed in 1889 and the areas next to the tracks became desirable commercial tracts. The financial success of the U.F.C. is an example of commercial establishments benefiting from the Railroad. According to the history of the site, the U.F.C. redeveloped the property and in 1912 opened its doors offering substantially discounted prices for groceries, hardware, feed, lumber, and general warehousing. The planing mill produced numerous building components including doors, windows, and siding. A general discussion followed regarding the former owners of the property. The Committee concluded that while their linkage has some impact on the history of Ukiah, the architecture of the building does not. However, the Committee pointed out that some components of the building may be worth salvaging from a historical perspective. Member French commented, in his opinion, the current western architectural theme on the building is very unattractive. He stated it must be determined how much of the original structure still remains prior to salvaging portions of the building for the purpose of historical preservation. He agreed the property has historical merit. Chair Pruden replied the Sanborn Map shows a slightly different "scale" of the building after the 1948 fire and the rebuilding of it in 1949. Attachment # .,~ "' ~ Demolition Permit Review October 26, 2004 Page 2 Member Lohse stated other buildings in town have more historical value than this building relative to architectural style. He reiterated the initial architectural style has lost its historical significance because the uses and facades have changed so many times. Chair Pruden stated the 1912 architecture was simply constructed. There is really no argument that the building's architecture has historical value, noting the site only has historical merit because of its past. She stated the next use would likely be a commercial/retail establishment. If this is the case, she recommended a signboard exhibit be displayed or incorporation of some architectural elements of the original building into the new building, reflecting the historical theme of the early 1900s in Ukiah. Member Stump stated if a future project comes forward, it could incorporate design elements similar to the Railroad depot, which represents a strong presence in Ukiah's history. It would be very important to display a storyboard honoring the history of the site. Member French recommended review of the other historical railroad buildings that no longer exist to assist with incorporating the architectural style of the time into the new structure. He did not favor mimicking the architectural style of the Railroad depot because it is "one of a kind." It should be remembered in history as a unique structure. He further recommended including, if possible, elements of the building into the new structure in order to preserve some of the history. Member Stump recommended utilizing the original timber from the building to possibly frame the storyboard exhibit. A general discussion followed regarding the salvaging of the original timber, noting the preserving the historical background of sites and buildings is important. Member Eriksen reflected on the history of the building, noting it is a shame the building does not have the architectural value to merit salvaging for reuse. Grant Leshin acknowledged the historical value of the site. ON A MOTION by Member Stump, seconded by Member Lohse, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to find the site historically significant pursuant to Section 6031e, 1 and 2 of the Ukiah Municipal Code because of its historical context of the site and the fact it is the oldest building in the area, and recommended to the City Council that the historical significance and corresponding impacts to removing the building be mitigated by completely photographing the building and providing a detailed story board exhibit either inside or outside of the new structure detailing the history of the site together with the effort of incorporating some of the salvaged material from the building into the Attachment # ~ ~'~ Demolition Permit Review October 26, 2004 Page 3 display or into the new structure, and that any future development reflect some architectural features/elements of the Railroad/industrial buildings on the site and/or surrounding area. Chair Pruden advised of the procedures that will follow this hearing. Member Stump explained staff will prepare an Initial Study and the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration must be adopted by the City Council before action can be taken on the Demolition Permit. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 2:36 p.m. Judy Pruden, Chairman Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Attachment # .~ -- ~- Demolition Permit Review October 26, 2004 Page 4 mo In reviewing proposed demolition permits, and formulating recommendations to the City Council, the Demolition Permit Review Committee shall consider any information provided during the meeting, and shall use the following criteria. The structure: 1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or 2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or 3. Is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history. Attachment # .... ¢ , I City of Ukiah MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: APPLICANTS: PROJECT NO.: LOCATION: October 27, 2004 Marin Ventures Demolition Permit 308/310 East Perkins Street, Ukiah, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are proposing to demolish wood-framed warehouse/retail structures that were originally built in the 1912. The structure has been modified over the years, but the core structure is over 90-years old. The buildings were originally used as a planing mill and lumbar storage. In recent years they have been used for retail sales and storage. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located in the densely urban environment along East Perkins Street and the railroad tracks. Research and field investigations reveal no known or suspected sensitive environmental habitats on or in close proximity to the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: City Staff conducted an analysis of whether or not the proposed building demolition would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and concluded that the only potential impact was to historic/cultural resources. Feasible and reasonable mitigation measures were developed and agreed to by the applicant. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, as mitigated 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, as mitigated will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals; 3. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, as mitigated will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, as mitigated will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Avenue//13kia/l~?C, alif~ .~,.--~'~ /"~~~or~~'~n mental Coordinator STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that the project, as mitigated will not have a significant effect on the environment, and further, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary October 27, 2004 Date Affochment # ,,, / INITIAL STUDY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CITY OF UKIAH 10. 11. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Marin Ventures Demolition Permit 2. Name of Project Proponent: Marin Ventures - Rob Simonds 3. Address of Project Proponent: P.O. Box 4282, Budin.qame,CA 94011-4282 4. Project Location: 2308/310 East Pekins Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 002-193-21 6. Date of Initial Study Preparation: October 27, 2004 7. Name of Lead Agency: City of Ukiah 8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 / (707) 463-6200 9. Project Description: Demolition of retail/storaqe structures ori,qinally built in 1912. Plans, Exhibits, and other Submitted Application Materials: All submitted application materials are available for review at the City of Ukiah Planninq Department - 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah. Initial Study Prepared by: Ukiah Plannin.q, Department Staff Affachment # ~-~'Z'~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicants are proposing to demolish wood-framed retail/storage structures that were originally built in 1912. The structure has been modified over the years, but the core structure is over 90- years old. The buildings were originally used as a planning mill and for lumber storage. In recent years they have been used for retail sales and storage. PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY The demolition of an old building is typically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. However, the Ukiah Demolition Review Committee has found that the structure has architectural and historical significance, therefore Staff has prepared an Initial Study to determine if the proposed demolition would result in significant adverse impacts to historic resources. This Initial Study document constitutes a "preliminary analysis" that is intended to determine if a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report must be prepared for the revised project to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study contains a detailed description of the project; a description of the environmental setting of the project site; a checklist of environmental topics; an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts; a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant impacts identified, if any; conclusions; and the resources used to prepare the Initial Study. The evaluation of potential environmental impacts is based on established significance criteria and by qualitative criteria established as part of accepted CEQA practice and legal judgements. The Initial Study specifically addresses the potential physical environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project. The document and its conclusions are considered public information and open for review and comment by interested agencies and the public at large. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS City Staff conducted an analysis of whether or not the proposed building demolition would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and concluded that the only potential impact was to historic resources. Feasible and reasonable mitigation measures were developed and agreed to by the applicant. Accordingly, it has been determined that the proposed proiect, as mitigated, will not violate any of the siqnificance criteria, and therefore a Mitiqated Neqative Declaration is appropriate for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE The project site is located in the densely urban environment along East Perkins Street. Research and field investigations reveal no known or suspected sensitive environmental habitats on or in close proximity to the project site. 2 Attachment # .~-- ~' 'Perkins Street · SUB2ECT P~OPER'T'Y RAZLROAD DEPOT PROPERTY ,. Attachment ENVI'RONMENTAL CHECKLI'ST This checklist was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed Project is implemented. As indicated in the Summary of Findings, the only potentially significant impact identified was Historic/Cultural Resources. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Beneficial ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated A. AESTHETICS Would the Project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect [] [] [] I~ [] on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic [] [] [] [~ [] resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade the existing [] [] n--E~' [] visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a newsource of [] [] [] I~ [] substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the Project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique [] [] [] [E'"" [] Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for [] [] [] I~ [] agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) Involve other changes in the [] [] [] I~ [] existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? C. AIR QUALITY Would the Project: /./ 1) Conflict with or obstruct [] [] []I~ [] implementation of the applicable air quality plan? / 2) Violate any air quality standard or [] [] [] Z~ [] contribute substantially to an Attachment # ,.~ ~ Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated existing or projected air quality violation? 3) Result in a cumulatively [] [] [] ~ [] considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to [] [] [] iD'"' [] substantial pollutant concentrations? 5) Create objectionable odors [] [] [] [~ [] affecting a substantial number of people? D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: · 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, [] [] [] ~ [] either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect [] [] []--[~' [] on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect [] [] [] I~ [] on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4) Interfere substantially with the [] [] [] I~ [] movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? · 5) Conflict with any local policies or [] [] [] I~ [] ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree Attachment # 4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Beneficial ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict with provisions of an [] [] [] I~ [] adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse I~ [] [] [] [] change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in {}15064.5? · 2) Cause a substantial adverse [] [] [] I~ [] change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to {}15064.5? 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a [] [] [] [~ [] unique paleontological resource or site or unique feature? 4) Disturb any human remains, [] [] [] I~ [] including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? F. GEOLOGYAND SOILS Would the Project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known [] [] [] I~ [] earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground [] [] [] I~ [] shaking? c) Seismic-related ground [] [] [] ~ [] failure, including liquefaction? d) Landslides? [] [] [] I:~ [] 2) Result in substantial soil erosion [] [] [] ~ [] or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or [] [] [] E~ [] soil that is unstable, or that would 5 Attachment # Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as [] [] [] [~" [] defined in Table 16-1 of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of [] [] [] ~ [] adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the [] [] [] [:~'/~ [] public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the [] [] [] E~ [] public, or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or [] [] [] [~ [] handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? · 4) Be located on a site which is [] [] [] []'/ [] included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) For a project located within an [] [] [] IZ~ [] airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a [] [] [] I~ [] private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Attachment# ~-'" ~' Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated project area? 7) Impair implementation of or [] [] [] ~ [] physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8) Expose people or structures to [] [] [] I~ [] significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: [] [] [] [~r~/ [] 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? · 2) Substantially deplete groundwater [] [] [] I~ [] supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the existing [] [] [] [:]'/' [] drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 4) Substantially alterthe existing [] [] [] E~ [] drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water [] [] [] ID/' [] which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? · 6) Otherwise substantially degrade [] [] [] [] water quality? 7 Attachment # ~"----/D Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Beneficial ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated ~ 7) Place housing within a 100-year [] [] [] I~ [] flood hazard area-as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood [] [] [] E~ [] hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 9) Expose people or structures to a [] [] [] [~,-"'""' [] significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10) Be subject to inundation by [] [] [] E~ [] seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: 1) Physically divide an established [] [] [] ~ [] community? 2) Conflict with any applicable land [] [] [] ~ [] use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Conflict with any applicable [] [] []-"1~' [] habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? J. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of [] [] [] ~ [] a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availability of [] [] [] []"/ [] a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? K. NOISE Would the Project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or [] [] [] E~ [] generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise 8 Attachment Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to, or [] [] [] [~' [] generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase [] [] []--[~'/' [] in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? /. 4) A substantial temporary or [] [] [] E]'/ [] periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5) For a project located within an [] [] []~[~' [] airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a [] [] [] E~ [] private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Project: 1) Induce substantial population [] [] [] [~ [] growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2) Displace substantial numbers of [] [] [] ~ [] existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? · 3) Displace substantial numbers of [] [] [] [~ [] people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? M. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project: 1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would Attachment# .~"'--'/Z-- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated cause significant enwronmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [] [] [] [] Police protection? [] [] [] [] Schools? [] [] [] [~ [] Parks? [] [] [] I~ [] Other public facilities? [] [] [] ~ [] N. RECREATION Would the Project: 1) Increase the use of existing [] [] [] [~ [] neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Include recreational facilities or [] [] [] [~ [] require the construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the Project: 1) Cause an increase in traffic, which [] [] [] [~ [] is a substantial relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) Exceed, either individually or [] [] [] [~ [] cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic [] [] [] I:~ [] patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 4) Substantially increase hazards [] [] [] [~ [] due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? A. achment # 10 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant No Beneficial Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated 5) Result in inadequate emergency [] [] [] ~'"'~ [] access? 6) Resultin inadequate parking [] [] [] [~ [] capacity? 7) Conflict with adopted policies, [] [] [] ~ [] plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: 1 ) Exceed wastewater treatment [] [] [] i~,''/' [] requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the [] [] [] ~ [] construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3) Require or result in the [] [] [] I~ [] construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4) Have sufficient water supplies [] [] [] [~ [] available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5) Result in a determination by the [] [] [] ~ [] wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6) Be served by a landfill with [] [] [] [~ [] sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Complywith federal, state, and [] [] [] [~ [] local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1) Does the project have the [] [] [] [~ [] potential to degrade the quality of 11 Attachment # Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Beneficial ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts [] [] [] I~ [] that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have [] [] D I~ [] environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 12 Attachment # .~'--...././4"-' DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Marin Ventures Demolition Permit 308/310 East Perkins Street, Ukiah City Staff conducted an analysis of whether or not the proposed building demolitions would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and concluded that the only potential impact was to historic resources. Feasible and reasonable mitigation measures were developed and agreed to by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS CONSIDERED AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Staff considered whether or not the proposed demolition would have an adverse impact on traffic and circulation, animal and plant life, public services, geology and soils, air quality, hydrology, visual quality, noise, housing, schools, energy and land use. After evaluating the proposed project in relation to these topical issues, it was concluded that the project would not adversely impact them for the following reasons: 1. The project involves the demolition of retail/storage structures on a site that is situated in a dense urban environment. 2. There are no sensitive animal or plant habitats on or in close proximity to the structure proposed for demolition. 3. The proposed demolitions would occur in a short amount of time, and therefore would not create significant or long-term noise or traffic impacts. 4. The removal of the buildings would not involve grading or any earth moving operations, and therefore would not adversely impact hydrology, soils or geology. 5. The removal of the structures would open up a developed site, and therefore would not block or obstruct any views or scenic vistas. , The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District has reviewed the proposal and determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on local or regional air quality, provided asbestos clearance is obtained from them prior to demolition activities. 7. The proposal would not remove or add housing to the City, and therefore would not have an adverse impact on the local housing stock oron local schools. 13 Attachment # ~'"--,,,/~, The only potentially significant adverse impact identified is on historic resources. A discussion of this potential impact is listed below. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES: A. Settin_~: The City of Ukiah is rich in historical resources, which include an eclectic assortment of historic homes and properties. Cultural resources are similarly abundant, and the City has provided for the preservation and enhancement of its cultural heritage. B. Si_clnificance Criteria: A significant impact to historic and cultural resources would occur if implementation of the project would: · Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical or cultural resource; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure or district that may be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure so that it results in the loss of a designated county landmark in the City of Ukiah; · Result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geological feature, or disturbs any human remains. C. Impacts: The Ukiah Municipal Code states that a permit to demolish a building over 50-years old that meets any of the following criteria shall not be immediately issued: 1. The building has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving of its kind; or 2. The building exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or 3. The building is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or national history. ~ On October 26, 2004, the Demolition Permit Review Committee found that the project site and structures are strongly identified with the railroad/industrial culture of Ukiah's past, and together with the adjacent historic railroad depot to the west, provide a significant historical context of culture. It also found that the old planning mill building is the oldest commecial building along East Perkins Street. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the buildings and sitehave significant historic significance. The Committee met with the Demolition Permit applicants and discussed its findings and possible mitigation measures. After a lengthy discussion, the applicants agreed to a number of mitigation measures to off-set potentially significant adverse impacts to local histodc resources. 14 Attachment D. Miti.qation Measures 1. Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby area. 2. Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "story-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. 3. The site and buildings shall be thoroughly photographed and documented. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation Based upon the comprehensive nature of the recommended mitigation measures, staff is able to conclude that the project, as mitigated, will not cause significant impacts to historic or cultural resources. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE A. Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES x NO B. Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one, which occurs, in a relatively brief, but definitive, period of time; long-term impacts will endure into the future). YES x NO C. Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have impacts on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) YES x NO 15 Attachment # ,,',',5--"',/~¢'~ D. Substantial Adverse: Does the project have environmental effect that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES x NO DETERMINATION: On the basis of this Initial Study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described within the Initial Study will be incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and an EN,,V~ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required. ..... . Charles Stump -'""- ' Print Name ~~///Planning Director/Environmental Coordinator Title October 27, 2004 Date 16 Attachment# ~'-'"/y RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY . , 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995 City of Ukiah Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory Report, 1984-1985 Historical Research Memorandum - 292 East Gobbi Street, Prepared by Judy Pruden, dated October 26, 2004 Minutes from the Demolition Permit Review Committee Meetings, dated October 26, 2004 Sanborn Maps, 1911-1918 and 1929-1950 Ukiah Republican Press, May 18, 1949, Pa,qe 4A, Col. 2-5 U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975). Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996. City Air Photoqraphs: 1941 and 1958. 17 Attachment MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Marin Ventures Demolition Permit 308/310 East Perkins Street, Ukiah AB 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the applicants to complete a number of Mitigation measures. The responsibility to ensure implementation of Mitigation Measures is with both the applicants and Planning Department Staff. Monitoring will be performed by Staff during the redevelopment of the site. . Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby area. RESPONSIBLE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION DATE INITIALS PROGRESS PARTY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE COMPLETED OF NOTES METHOD MONITOR Plans submitted Discretionary Applicants for discretionary review and review of future building Permits structure(s) shall for future include required development design elements/ , Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "story-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. RESPONSIBLE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION DATE INITIALS PROGRESS PARTY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE COMPLETED OF NOTES METHOD MONITOR Plans submitted Prior to final Applicants for discretionary inspection of review of future future structure(s) structure(s) shall include required Story board. 18 Attachment# 3. The site and buildings shall be lhoroughly photographed and documented. RESPONSIBLE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION DATE INITIALS PROGRESS PARTY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE COMPLETED OF NOTES METHOD MONITOR Submittal of Prior to issuance Applicants detailed of a Demolition photog ra ph ic Perm it survey. 19 Attachment