Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-15 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JOINT WORKSHOP WITH UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 December 15, 2004 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL- CITY COUNCIL m w 2, UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of Cost Share Agreement Supporting the 65/35 Compromised Split for the Design and Construction of the Proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion and Rehabilitation Project b. Adoption of the ESSU "Will Serve" Procedure c. Rescheduling of the Value Engineering Team Design Review Feedback to the January 19, 2005 Joint Meeting PUBLIC EXPRESSION a. Announcements/Other Business ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM NO: 2a MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF COST SHARE AGREEMENT SUPPORTING THE 65/35 COMPROMISED SPLIT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AND REHABILITATION PROJECT Summary: Both the City Attorney and Chief Deputy Council for the County shared their input and discussed the proposed cost share agreement as directed by the City Council and UVSD Board. The City Attorney commented to Staff the Chief Deputy Council for the County had no issues or concerns with the document. Therefore, Staff recommends the City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation Board adopt the Cost Share Agreement Supporting the 65/35 Compromised Split. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Adopt the above referenced cost share agreement. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not adopt and provide Staff with further direction. Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Bernie Ziemianek, Executive Director UVSD Bernie Ziemianek, Executive Director UVSD 1. Agreement Approved: '~ ley C"'Ca it~a ndace Hors , nager KFi'~ENT. / AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF UKIAH AND UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT This Agreement is entered on ,2004 ("Effective Date"), in Ukiah, California, between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation, and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District ("District"), a special district. The City and the District may be referred to herein as a "Party," or collectively as "the Parties." RECITALS: 1. The Parties entered a Participation Agreement on July 19, 1995, under which (1) they share the cost and use of a waste water treatment plant owned and operated by the City, and (2) the City operates and maintains the sewer mains, laterals and related facilities owned by the District. 2. On July 19, 1995, the Parties entered an Amendment No. 1 to the Participation Agreement. That agreement affirms that the annual costs for the entire sewer system (treatment plant, trunk sewer and collection system of the City and the District), including maintenance, operation, administration, repair and replacement, upgrading, debt service, insurance and financial services are allocated between the City and the District based upon the ratio of City and District sewer service units for each year of operation. "Sewer service unit" is defined in the Participation Agreement and is referred to herein as "Sewer service unit" or "ESSU." 3. Amendment No. 1 also requires a separate written agreement between the City and the District for expense categories not included in an approved budget for the sewer system prior to the 1997/1998 fiscal year, if the expense is a capital expense in excess of $100,000 other than a repair or replacement of existing facilities or equipment. 4. The wastewater treatment plant is at or near its capacity to treat and discharge treated wastewater in compliance with its Waste Discharge/NPDES Permit from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ("NCRWQCB"). 5. Using pre-treatment methods recommended by Brown and Caldwell, Environmental Engineers and Consultants, on an interim basis only, the City has increased the treatment capacity S:\ULttGRMTS04\SANDAMEN2REVI 1-16.DOC December 8, 2004 Page 1 of 5 of its sewage treatment plant by a total of 1388 Equivalent Sewer Service Units ("ESSUs"), assuming that availability of these ESSUs is not affected by any orders or determinations by the NCWRQCB or any other administrative or judicial body with jurisdiction over the City's sewer discharges. 6. In addition to expanding its treatment capacity, many of the structures and treatment processes within the treatment plant have exceeded their useful design life and need to be replaced or rehabilitated. 7. The City has obtained a preliminary design from Brown and Caldwell for two related projects: (1) a project to increase the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to permit additional new connections in both the District and the City ("the Capacity Project"); and (2) a project to rehabilitate and upgrade the wastewater treatment plant ("the Upgrade/Rehabilitation Project"), collectively, "the Project." The engineer's cost estimates for the projects are approximately $21,000,000 for the Capacity Project and $42,000,000 for the Upgrade/Rehabilitation Project, for a combined Project cost of $63,000,000. The City currently estimates that both projects will be completed in 2008. Many factors could affect the estimated completion date, and the Parties acknowledge that this is an estimate only. 8. The Parties estimate that upon its completion, the Capacity Project will increase the wastewater treatment plant's capacity by an additional 2400 ESSU's ("Increased Capacity"), including the number made available temporarily as described in Recital Number 5, above. 9. Allocating the costs of the Capacity Project and the upgrade portion of the Upgrade/Rehabilitation Project requires a separate written agreement under Amendment No. 1, because those portions of the projects will involve expense categories not included in an approved budget for the sewer system prior to the 1997/1998 fiscal year, which are capital expenses in excess of $100,000 other than a repair or replacement of existing facilities or equipment. Accordingly, the Parties require this Amendment No. 2 to allocate the available ESSU's and to share the cost of the Project. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as stated below, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Allocation of ESSU's Prior to Completion of Project and of Increased Capacity after Project Completion. 1.1 ESSU's During Interim Period. The ESSU's made available through the use of the pre-treatment process recommended by Brown and Caldwell shall be allocated as follows: 938 to the District; 442 to the City. If either party uses its remaining connections before the other party, it may give the other party written notice that it requests negotiations to share the other party's remaining connections. Not later than fifteen (15) days after such notice has been given, the S :\U~GRMTS04\SANDAMEN2REV 11 - 16. DOC December 9, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Parties shall meet and negotiate the sharing of the remaining connections. The Parties are not required to agree to share the remaining connections, but each party shall carefully consider the interests and concerns of the other party and make a good faith effort to accommodate them, while still protecting its own governmental interests. 1.2 The Increased Capacity. The Increased Capacity shall be allocated as follows: 65% to the District; 35% to the City. This allocation of Increased Capacity shall be subject to the same review and opportunity for adjustment as is provided for the allocation of Capacity Project costs under Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 2. Allocation of the Project Costs. All of the costs of the Project ("project Costs"), including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, design, design review, administration, construction, legal and financing (including fees, financial services, transaction costs and debt service) shall be allocated between the City and the District as follows: 2.1. The Capacity Project. 35% of the Project Costs of the Capacity Project shall be paid by the City and 65% of those Project Costs shall be paid by the District. This allocation of Capacity Project Costs is based on an estimate of the number of new Sewer service units that will be needed in the City and in the District through the year 2020. The allocation of these costs shall be reviewed annually by the Parties to insure that the cost sharing reflects the actual proportion of new connections in the City and the District. Each year, commencing twelve months after the completion of the Project, the Parties shall meet to conduct this review, taking into account the number of new service connections within each party during the previous twelve months, the total number of new connections within each party's jurisdiction since the Effective Date, the likely number of new connections in the next one, three and five year time periods, any changes in organization, including annexations or detachments, which may have occurred, and any other facts or conditions the Parties consider relevant. Based upon this review, the Parties may adjust the allocation of these costs between them. 2.2. The Upgrade/Rehabilitation Project. The Project Costs of the Upgrade/Rehabilitation Project shall be allocated between the City and the District based upon the ratio of City and District ESSUs for each year of operation, commencing in the year when Project Costs are first incurred, as provided in the Participation Agreement. Consistent with the Participation Agreement, these allocations shall be calculated each year at the same time and in the same manner as other costs allocated under Section 1 of the Participation Agreement. 2.3. Rate Setting to Recover Costs. Each party agrees to establish rates (connection fees and sewer service fees) which are sufficient to pay its share of Project Costs as apportioned pursuant to this Agreement. 3. Compliance with waste discharge/NPDES requirements. Each party in its management of its sewer system agrees to comply with the Waste Discharge/NPDES permits issued to the City for the operation of the waste water treatment plant and sewer system and with applicable provisions of state and federal law, which regulate discharges to the waters of the State S:\U~GRMTS04\SANDAMEN2REV 11 - 16.DOC December 9, 2004 Page 3 of 6 of California and the United States, including the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act and the Clean Water Act; provided, however, that the legal and other costs of defending a citizen suit or other enforcement action and any settlement or judgment shall be an expense of the entire sewer system, subject to apportionment under the Participation Agreement. Such costs shall not be apportioned and shall be allocated to one Party, if the other Party gives that Party written notice of actions it must take to avoid such a violation and that Party fails to take such action within the time provided in the notice. 4. Notice. Whenever written notice is required or permitted by this Agreement, the Participation Agreement, Amendment No. 1, or any future amendments to the Participation Agreement, it shall be deemed given when actually received, if delivered by personal delivery, fax, registered or certified mail or overnight courier, or 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto, when addressed or sent as follows: CITY OF UKIAH Attention: City Manager Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA. 95482 FAX: 463-6204 UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT Attention: Chairman County of Mendocino County Administration Center 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA. 95482 FAX: 463-4245 5. Effect on Participation Agreement. This Amendment No. 2 constitutes a second amendment to the Participation Agreement, and is not intended to alter the terms of the Participation Agreement and Addendum No. 1, except as expressly provided herein. Collectively, the Participation Agreement, Amendment No. 1 and this Amendment No. 2 ("the Agreements") contain the entire agreement between the City and the District concerning the wastewater treatment plant and the City' s operation of the sewer systems in the City and the District. Together, these agreements supercede and replace any other statements, agreements, or understandings between the Parties concerning this subject matter. The Participation Agreement, including Amendment No. 1 and this Amendment No. 2 may be modified only by a written agreement approved by the governing bodies of the Parties and executed by an authorized officer of each Party. 6. Duplicate Originals. Two or more copies of this Amendment No. 2 may be executed by the Parties. Each such copy, bearing the original signatures of the Parties, shall be considered an original agreement, admissible in any administrative or judicial proceedings as evidence of the agreement between the Parties. 7. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Unless otherwise agreed in bond indentures or other agreements or documents prepared in connection with financing the Project, which documents have been approved by the governing bodies of the Parties and signed by authorized S:\U~GRMTS04\SANDAMEN2REV 11 - 16.DOC December 9, 2004 Page 4 of 6 representatives of the Parties, the Parties intend this agreement for the sOle benefit of the Parties and do not intend to confer any rights under the Agreements or any right to enforce the Agreements on any person or entity who is not a Party. WHEREFORE, the Parties have entered this Agreement on the Effective Date. CITY OF UKIAH By. ATTEST: Candace Horsley, City Manager Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Approved as to form: David J. Rapport, City Attorney UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT By: , Chairman Approved as to form: H. Peter Klein, County Counsel S:\U~GRMTS04\SANDAMEN2REV 11-16.DOC December 9, 2004 Page 5 of 6 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2b MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE ESSU "WILL SERVE" PROCEDURE Summary: Staff completed the necessary changes involving a revised policy of the '~Nill Serve" procedure as discussed and outlined at the last meeting. Contacts were made with a number of jurisdictions to inquire about their policies. After discussions with at least 10 jurisdictions it is Staff's conclusion the proposed City/UVSD policy is in line with the basic principals to manage the requests. The joint City/UVSD proposal in many ways is a better management procedure than most. The most significant items are the fairness of an easy request protocol and the time checks throughout the process. Changes to the draft document include the following: · Reducing the maximum number of units to be brought before the Staff and Board for discussion · Initial percentage fee for the affordable housing developer · Enhanced time allotment for the affordable housing developer · $500 fee for all returned ESSUs returned due to project termination Therefore, Staff recommends to the joint Board approval of the revised "Will Serve" policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the above referenced Will Serve Policy. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not adopt and provide Staff with further direction. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Executive Director UVSD Bernie Ziemianek, Executive Director UVSD 1. Typical and Affordable Housing Policies Approved: ~:_~..-~~ Candace Horsley, Ci~Manager A"i'TAOHMENT~ Return Units To ESSU Pool Return Fees To Requester (less $500 processing charge). Project Terminated No Request ESSU / / .......................................... **ESSU Reques! >20 (Equivalent Sewer System Unit) ~ or Will Serve Letter** ! Requires Meetin9 with ' ................. C?t~/tJI:/SD" St~ Yes (Re)Adjust ......................... · ESSU Pool Submit Project to Planning Department Pay Fee per ESSU Yes MProvide Additional aterial to Planning Department ~ No No es Apply for 6-Month Building Permit Extension Begin Construction In Extra 6 mo. Apply For and Obtain Building Permit No Construction In Progress i ,J Exact ESSU Calculation ] By Water and Sewer Technician Yes /Reconcile/ ESSU Fees as Necessary ESSUflowchart4,doc 12/08/04 (Equivalent ~ ~ ESSU Request > ..O- Request ESSU** Sewer System Unit) or Will~ / ....................... i Requires Meeting with Serve Letter for Affordable ! i City/UVSD Staff Hn~ ,~inn n~v~lnn~r 7 C it~uSv~ DFe~r ibt eYr, a// Return units to ESSU / (Re)Adjust I Fill ESSU Pool. Return Fees to ..................................... I~ ESSU Pool j4 Request Requester (/ess $5OO processing rloncaeb~l~~ y t ty to Proceed / Submit Project to / o Project Terminated J / Plan~ir~ g6 DrneoPn~sm. e nt/ Pay Fee (25~) No Yes M at ~ at~dmP~tnni~Y' es  Apply For and /7 Obtain Building /"* Applyfor6-Month 7 No ~ Begin ~ Building Permit /4--~,,, Constriction .~ Extension ._/ ~ 2~Yes Begin Construction In Construction In Progress Extra 6 mo. Exact ESSU Calculation By Water and Sewer Technician ' Reconcile ESSU / Fees As / Necessary _./ ESSUflowchart-affordable-rev2.doc 12/08/04 Sm PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Tentative Certification of Environmental Impact Report for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Project b. Approval of Resolution Establishing An On-Site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee for The Airport Industrial Park 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion of Funding Mechanisms for the Acquisition and Development of Properties and Projects for Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Within the City of Ukiah b. Discussion and Possible Introduction of Ordinance Amending City Noise Regulations and Consideration and Possible Adoption of Noise Regulations for City Parks and Facilities 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution Making Appointment to the Airport Commission Appointment b. Discussion and Approval of Memorandum of Mutual Understanding for Participation in Development in a North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan c. Assignment of Ukiah City Councilmembers to Various Committees d. Selection and Appointment of Vice-Mayor e. Authorization to File Protest With Water Resources Control Board of Redwood Valley Water District Applications to Appropriate Water From West Fork Russian River and Mill Creek f. Overview of Council/Planning Commission Appointment Process g. Consideration and Possible Approval of Settlement Agreement In McCann, Templeton v. Ukiah 12. COUNCIL REPORTS 13. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 14. CLOSED SESSION a. G. C. §54957.6-Conference with Labor Negotiator Employee Organization: Electrical Unit Agency Designated Representative: Candace Horsley, City Manager b. G. C. §54956.9 (a) -Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation McCann, Templeton v. Ukiah, Mendocino S.C. No. SCUK CVG 0391282 15. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 4a DATE: December 15, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: COUNCIL INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS ALLAN HUNTER AND CARL STEINMANN The City Clerk's office submitted a News Release on November 15, 2004, soliciting applicants to fill an unexpired term on the Airport Commission due to the vacancy created when Mark Ashiku was elected Mayor of the City of Ukiah. The term of office expires June 30, 2006 and the appointee must reside within the City limits of Ukiah. Two applicants submitted an application by the deadline of December 6, 2004: Allan Hunter Carl H. Steinmann II. Per Resolution No. 2001-61, Council is to conduct interviews of applicants for the Airport Commission. Attached for Council's review are the applications submitted by the two candidates. A five-minute interview with each applicant is scheduled, with Mr. Hunter scheduled first. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct interviews of applicants to the Airport Commission. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to re-advertise for the vacancy. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ukiah City Council Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~.~/~.~~.- ~~_~~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Applications submitted by applicants to the Airport Commission APPROVED: -.~.. Candace Horsley, City Man~i~er ASR: Commission Appointment - Airport 2004 i'~i DEC - 1 2004 PLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT ' j AIRPORT COMMISSION ~ .. CITY 0F UKIAH ~ ~700~7 DAT~ c~~~~~ . I am applying for an appointment to the CiW of Ukiah's Airpo~ Commission 2. Residence AddressZ'¢ 3. Business Address 4. Employer .... ~rt ¢2~ ,, 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah?~'&- ,, .. _Res. Phone _ Job title , Bus. Phone _Employed since years; Mendocino County?..~' California?~ 6. Please list Community groups or Organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held? _ ¢=~ e'~.~__~= ,J~.,~ ~' ~. ,., _ ... .. , Please answer the following questions on seParate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's. Airport Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? How do you believe your own skills, experience,,expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission? 10. What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue facing oUr community? and why? 11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development should the City encourage? 12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport development should the City discourage? 13. What kind of'ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? · 14: Do you have any known, projects or conflict of interest related to this Commission? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by NOon on Monday, June 28, 2_004. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. -" .. Signature Date City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Forms: Airport Commission Application Revised: 5/20/04 Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 6-18-04 8. To assist the Council in the operation of the facilities 10. ~or airc~ exveri~: Aixpon worker aud student pilot in hi~ school Construction & equipment u~qint_,~_nce Grand 1ury (two terms94-96) To keep the facilities an Entexprise Funded operation. 12. Develolm~nt that is not suited for general' airport uses. 13. "A good place to live". CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AIRPORT COMMISSION I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission 1. Name 2. Residence Address ,~ 3-,_% ~. ~'~,,~ [~ Res. Phone 3. Business Address 4. Employer Job title 't5,--~,,. ! ~,.,,,,,.__~,, Employed since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~ years; Mendocino County? 3o% California? 2-,t .~ ,,, 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held? Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Airport Commission? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission? 10. What do you believe is the single most important Airport related issue facing our community? and why? 11. .12. 13.' 14. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development should the City encourage? In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport development should the City discourage? What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? Do you have any known projects or conflict of interest related to this Commission? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Monday~ December 2004. Thank you for Your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. "' - Signature City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Emaii: marieu~.citvofukiah.com Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 Forms: Airport Commission Application Revised: 11/15/04 Cad H Steinmann 885 North Bush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 462-1,:1~1 7. I am applying for the posiUon on the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission to learn about the operaUon of the airport, the Commission's role in the futura of the airport, how the C~y and local pilots work together, and to provide a service to the community. 8. My understanding of the Airport Commission's role is to work with the City, Businesses, and the Community for use and future planning of the airport. 9. The experiences ! have am at other Ioc~ions such as: Pierce Reid in Lowedake and Lampson Field in Lakeport. ! have also worked with pilots, mostly from the Uldah area and ! am starting a helicopter business in the Ukiah ama. ! feel that ! would bdng a positive attitude to the Airport Commission. 10. ! feel that the most important issue for our community related to the airport is safety. Because of the rural are that we live in we must be able to use our airport to provide a vadety of emergency services. ! also feel it is important to have a good relationship with local pilots and the community. 11. ! believe that the City should develop positive growth, expand to the needs of the community, and look forward to production and mom development. 12. ! would discourage any programs that would hurt or discourage local pilots' use of the airport and its services. 13.An ideal community is one that can work together and provide growth without negative behaviors or actions. 14. ! do not believe that ! am involved in any projects or activities that would conflict with the interest of this Commission nor do ! plan any involvement with such. i 'DEC-] 2004 CITY OF ~JKiAH CITY CLER;';'S City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Airport Commission Carl H. S teinmann/I 885 North Bush Street Ukiah, CA 95482 (707) 462-1441 (707) 466-8055 pager To Whom It May Concern: I am applying for the available position that is open on the Airport Commission. I have lived in Ukiah for 33 years. I am interested in the future of the Airport and would like to serve on the Commission. I have a private pilot's license and am continuing hours for my commercial license. I have a Helicopter and hope to bring it to Ukiah and go into private business by this summer. I do have some background in aviation, and feel that that will help me serve on this commission. I hope that you will consider me for this tWo-year position. I have many local references that I can provide you, upon request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely; Carl H Steinmann H MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on November 17, 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: McCowen, Rodin, Smith, Baldwin (arrived at 7:20 pm.), and Mayor Larson. Staff present: Development Permit Coordinator Ballard, Police Captain Dewey, Water Utilities Project Manager Burck, Civil Engineer Eriksen, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor Gall, Risk Manager/ et Officer Harris, City Manager Horsley, Fire Chief Latipow, Associate McCann, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele, Director Stump, Police Chief Williams, Public Utilities Ulvila. Finance Director Rapport, Planning mianek, and City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE James Mulheren led the Pledge of Allegian 2b. an Unex tired Term New Councilmember City Clerk Ulvila advised that at Council heard presentations from vacancy created by Co~ After discussion by vacancy, lion wa making the ~nt to Resolution and SWEARING IN NEW COUNClLI a. Ado in of Resolution Makin ;e and tion assed. Cour t to the Council to Fill ,n of Oath of Office for 10, Council meeting, the City ment to fill the Council October 31, 2004. ed nora ing John McCowen to fill the later rescinded, to adopt a Resolution Council directed Staff to agendize the this meeting. M/S roll 'ote' AYES: None. ABS ;lesolutic 8, making the appointment of John ~uncil term of Paul Andersen, carried by the following .ers Rodin, Smith, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ilmember Baldwin. City Cler la took his seat ~d the Oath of Office to Mr. McCowen. Mr. McCowen then 3. IINUTES 3a. Regular .cl Minutes of October 20, 2004 M/S Rodin/Smith approving the Regular Meeting minutes of October 20, 2004, as presented, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES' Councilmembers Rodin, Smith, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN' Councilmember McCowen. ABSENT: Councilmember Baldwin. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3b. Re.qular Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2004 M/S Smith/Rodin approving the Special Joint Meeting minutes of the City Council and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District of October 20, 2004, as presented, carried by the Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 1 of 12 following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rodin, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember McCowen. Baldwin. Smith, and Mayor Larson. ABSENT: Councilmember 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Larson read the appeal process. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Horsley advised that some corrections were m, item 'T' and the corrected report was presented to Council the Staff Report for the meeting. M/S Smith/Rodin approving item "a" through "i" of the a. Approved Disbursements for Month of October b. Received Annual Review of Traffic Si( for and East Gobbi Street; c. Rejected Claim for Damages Rece~w Powers Authority, Redwood Empire , d. Adopted Resolution 2005-19 A Jm of Under Employee Bargaining Unit- De e. Adopted of Resolution 2005- f. Approved Purchase of Infil' Management Equipment From C g. Awarded Bid for Various Pole $34,130.17 to We h. Awarded Sole S~ and Approved Amen i. Adopted Resi Base Resource WAPA The~ as follows: Orchard Avenue Mark Nance and red to Joint Ht ding for Destruction; Video Inspection and Data $72,000; in the Amount of :ription oes not to Exceed $19,026 ,quest for Assignment of City of Ukiah's nment Administration Agreement for horization for City Manager to Execute M~ carried by Rodir ~ith, and M Council ~er Baldwin. roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers McCowen, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: 6. AUDIENI ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Daniel de la P announced that there will be a memorial on November 20th at the Elks Club McKinley, who pasted away last month. He also suggested to Counc hat if a Proposition 215 marijuana provider wants to be a provider within the City limits, they must live at the location where they are providing the marijuana. He voiced his concern with armed guards to protect marijuana gardens. 9. CITY MANGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley announced that on December 15th at 4:00 p.m. a Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District is planned in the Council Chambers. She also reported on December 1st, prior to the commencement of the Council meeting, there will be a reception welcoming the new Councilmembers and saying thank you to those who are leaving office. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 2 of 12 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7a. Adoption of Resolution Approvin.q the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Proiect (Continued from November 37 2004) Planner Director Stump explained that at the November 3, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing and heard from the public on the matter of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project. There was considerable public te: heard comments from an attorney representing an ad conclusion of that hearing, while the Council a document, the City Attorney suggested that the matt( allow him time to review the comments made by has completed his review and his mem~ Report. City Attorney Rapport's conclusion i: light of those comments, with the City Declaration for this project. to he continues ahead with a M specifically Council y owner. At the comfortable with the ~ued to this meeting to Attorney Rapport enda Summary able, in ,d Negative City Attorney Rapport advised that in his mem by Mr. Belzer, an attorney speakin! of the them separately. the various arguments made erns, and responded to each of Councilmember Rodin Negative Declaration CEQA." uested th~ the second issue: "The measures in violation of City Attorney contends that the proposed the Miti~ set interl: involve~ a cas, h a detail and in his at case. ~rt advis~ it ~e most complicated issue. Mr. Belzer Jon and additional mitigations that the completing after the Council approves Mr. B~ 9r contends that it violates requirements as ;trum v. the County of Mendocino. The City Attorney that case and the CEQA Guidelines which that case is very different than the situation that was In the Miti( ~eclaration before the City Council, there aren't unknown future impacts ations say have to be studied after the Mitigated Negative Declaration is ap based on future studies that will be conducted by the City. There were two thin s going on in Sundstrum that the court found to violate the CEQA Guidelines. He reviewed the information contained in his Memo concerning this case. The court said there was a violation of the Guidelines because it involved the County doing additional evaluation of the project through an applicant supplied expert and then relying on the expert to develop mitigations after the Negative Declaration was approved. The Court said that the Guidelines require any mitigation to be proposed before the Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public comment. The County procedure would result in those proposed mitigations completely evading public review. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 3 of 12 The other element concerned mitigations that relied on subsequent approval by other regulatory agencies. The court upheld those mitigations, except for one involving a site plan and a sludge disposal plan that had to be approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) after the negative Declaration was approved. In Sundstrum evidence had been submitted that there was no place in the County that would accept the sludge for disposal. Because of that evidence, the County couldn't leave the development of a disposal plan to the RWQCB. In the City's case, there are between .2 and .5 of an acre wetlands that have been identified in the Mitigated Nt also some potential impacts on wildlife and cultural resou from those things are knowable at this time and the the standard regulatory approvals that are City Council won't mitigate those impacts. Th Engineers relies on well-established environ~ complies with those standards, there is no wetlands won't be adequately protected. ~an-made and natural eclaration. There are All of the physical effects in the record that is approved by the permit fl Army Corp of standards. ~g as the City to think that the .2 an acre of He noted that flooding was the other issue and 1 within the floodway and any ~nts withir standards. By definition, there is :e that cause flooding impacts. Dealing requires someone to be present at th~ disturb either cultural or wilc the opposite of the are; it knows th~ be environmental rds and ulatory reason that the was speci dis call for no improvements Flood Plain must meet FEMA those improvements could ife and cultural resources g sure the work doesn't that the City's situation is ,cause th City knows what the impacts the City is relying on well established from other agencies. The only in Sundstrum was because there the County where sludge could be It opinion th~ Mitig egative Decl the Negati~ case is not a problem for the City Council with this y, it doesn't suffer from any of the procedural )eclaration in the Sundstrum case had. He further rden on someone challenging a Negative Declaration is to identify substan that is in the record, either evidence that a person presents or that is develo 'ough the environmental review, on the basis of which a fair argument can be m~ ~ that the project may have an adverse impact. It was his opinion that Mr. Belzer did not identify any substantial evidence he could base that argument on, Public Hearing Opened: 6:55 p.m. Planning Director Stump advised that he provided Council with a revised resolution which is different from the one presented to Council at its last meeting. Staff inadvertently left off the impacts and mitigation measurers listed for Cultural Resources and have revised the resolution accordingly. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 4 of 12 Richard Mattern, Ukiah, advised that their attorney, Mr. Belzer, was unable to attend this Council meeting. He asked for a two weeks continuance because Mr. Belzer did not receive the materials from Mr. Rapport until this morning and he didn't have time to adequately review them and respond. He stated that when there is a plan to build on property and there isn't a complete plan, it is difficult to know if you are mitigating all of the problems. He did not think the City's plan was mitigated completely with regard to the impacts of the project on adjacent property owners. Jeff Ward, one of the owners of Wardway Lumber Co. loc y to the west and adjacent to the sewage treatment plant., stated that one challenges his company has had to deal with is the smell from the plant. Some ,Ioyees working on the east side of the plant wear masks to take care of smell. He recently found out that if they had a problem with the sm, need to ct the Mendocino County Air Quality Control Board. He felt very bad nuis~ and he is supportive of the project if it takes care of th~ I problem. Donna Mattern, Ukiah, stated that she and project. She felt it would be a help o them if th~ on near their property and it would~ hem to pc Public Hearing Closed' 7:05 p.m. not receive nc ices on the ~otified of things that are going take a steps on their own. Councilmember McC~ 200 feet of the resi~ L~ ponds located within 100 to Paul Scheideg! located about 140( sewage the :, calculated that the ponds would be rrd Lane residents. He pointed out the Col fr, of the surro uired if Staff is aware of complaints regarding odors owners or residents. Mr. Iger respon: consult wi' plant m; plant. In thi., there has never that demonstrated that during the preparation of the Initial Study, they always er and get debriefed on the historical performance of the has been there from eight to ten years at the plant and ar nuisance issue. There wasn't anything conveyed to him was a significant odor issue. They also consulted with the Mendocino County Quality Control District (District) and received a historical perspective on odor complaints. There has not been any documented odor complaints associated with the wastewater treatment plant. They did note for the record that there was one occurrence at the Brewery treatment plant that caused a complaint to be reported and started the process whereby the District investigates the source of odor. In that situation, it was not the wastewater treatment plant, but the Brewery facility. From a regulatory standpoint, the wastewater treatment plant is not considered to be a nuisance, nor a potential nuisance. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 5 of 12 Councilmember McCowen inquired if the improvements to the plant could be expected to reduce odor even with the expansion, that is, if there were an odor problem. Mr. Scheidegger responded affirmatively. He explained that there is a modest increase in flow where the current permitted flow is 2.8 MGD and the increase would go to 3.01 MGD. He advised that Brown and Caldwell Engineering consultants identified all of the design measures that would be included in the treatment plant that would provide for more efficient treatment of the flows and thereby further reduce the odor potential. Councilmember McCowen inquired if there would be week delay. ,blem with having a two Mr. Scheidegger responded by discussing the 4 Army Corp of Engineers. All of that of Determination issued. To the extent permitting process. There are broader start of construction next summer that are imp g involved with the is contingent a Notice lelays occur, that extend the the de cost, and City Attorney Rapport ex Council meeting and Belzer didn email Mr. Belzer his memorandum t~ morning. It is his understanding from the meeting was clos continuance was to meeting. He wa~ comment at this so or to extend th meeting. public opin receiv ysis that C he didr h that ~e called to him ;elzer shortly after the last City Monday. He volunteered to ~t it to him at 8:00 a.m. this public hearing portion of on November 3 and the by Mr. Belzer at the previous cil could agree to hear additional public ink Council had a legal obligation to do :he meeting any further than tonight's eeting once and has allowed additional s not legally required. PI~ Director worried aboL in orde the nc constru~ ~son, the problematic, may increase in getting through th ~ed that the Public Utility Staff is concerned with a h the regulatory process with the other agencies ction season. If the City does not make the next ect would be delayed another year and that would be very has indicated that the cost of materials, such as concrete, weeks would potentially create a hardship if it kept Staff from regulatory processes. City Manager Horsley noted that the design phase for the water plant is at 80% and the sewer treatment project is at 100%. The contractor is ready to begin after this hearing is complete. Mr. Scheidegger advised that the project that is scheduled to begin construction next summer consists of everything within the existing treatment plant boundary. It has been indicated that the future improvements in the plant expansion area will occur within the next five to ten years. The City will be conducting an additional environmental review under CEQA at that time because the project will be subject to further design efforts. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 6 of 12 That CEQA review will then look back on this review if any conditions have changed in this project area and see if the analysis that was conducted is appropriate and accurate. If it is not, then additional review would be necessary and the City would need to go through the whole process again. The project that is in the plant expansion area is not part of the construction to begin next summer. City Attorney Rapport advised that he also addressed that issue in his memo because that was one of the arguments made by Mr. Belzer; that CEQA required the City to completely design the improvements in the expansion Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Mattern made that Rapport's opinion, the case law does not support that ~. Expansion Area were so uncertain that the City about it, it wouldn't have to analyze the impacts that is not the case here. The City has un~ impacts from the projected development withi~ it won't take place for 5-10 years, because overall design. However, the City is only overall design, has to do is evaluate the irt available. It was his opinion that the City has look at what the impacts of that the City knows about it right no~ information is available, then the to see if there are additional impacts t to Expansio~ pment is a nec to co that evalu. pi it is fu~ approving the point today. In Mr. If plans for the Plant meaningful comment at all. However, environmental ~, even though part of the based on n the information currently its obligations under CEQA to are going to be, based on what ned and more specific that environmental review Councilmember Council's last m~ comments and them and that Mr. the N~ on the it was a ed ow his o that that at the conclusion of the City Attorney would explore Mr. Belzer's Attorney has satisfactorily explored prevent the Council from approving prepare an EIR. He opposed a delay Ma, and There the projecl was uirements further env that the City has done due diligence in this matter issues have been satisfied by the City Attorney. review for the future component of the expansion of M/S Rodin Resolution 2005-22 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for ti' Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project, carried by the following roll call zote: AYES: Councilmembers McCowen, Rodin, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7b. Consideration and Action on Appeal Filed by Fred Bellows and Catherine Indermill of the Planning Commission's Conditional Approval of thc Graeber Use Permit and Variance for Project at 290 Highland Avenue Mayor Larson explained that the lack of a site visit is grounds for recusal on this matter and in polling the Councilmembers it was determined that Councilmember Smith had not visited the site. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 7 of 12 City Attorney Rapport advised that Councilmember Smith should not vote on the matter because all of the Councilmembers are basing their decision on the same evidence and if one Councilmember has not visited the site, then the information is not equally available to all of the Council. Planning Director Stump explained that Dr. Graeber has proposed a 2,500 square foot home on the parcel that is located in the lower portion of the Hillside District at 290 Highland Avenue. Due to the narrow 60-foot width of the p; yard setback requirements of the Hillside Zoning District. locate the house closer to the property lines than Accordingly, in addition to the required Use Permit for District, front and side yard setback variances reviewed his Staff Report and explained the set 15%. Dr. Graeber is proposing a six foot side yard set back on the south, and is required. On September 22, 2004, the hearing, and after considerable public te~ Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionall~ to allow the construction of a sin( residen Bellows and Ms. Indermill, the p to During the Planning Commission me concerns about the project. Their iss~ of privacy, and the Commission's findim Report. He ,ded th~ ;ity Co decision and den~ [, as well as the large is proposing to 'owed on steep property. in the Hillside Zoning the project. He for prope with a slope over setback on and 14 foot ir 20 feet in the fronl re 30 feet is ~ing Co condL a public sion, voted 4 t¢ to adopt a d a Use Permit and Variance the narrow vacant parcel. Mr. filed a timely appeal. a number of issues and investigation, invasion discussed the Planning iect, ich are addressed in the Staff agree with the Planning Commission's Public He; Fred wr to nob the Hillside' discuss~ concerns project cc to th neighborhoo~ property owner City Council overt land Avenue, explained that he and his wife made a for the Major Use Permit last year and was not mentioned in the document. He the 19% grade of the parcel, the proposed setbacks for the s for his property and other properties in the ils investigation, invasion of their privacy as an adjacent )ils engineering and the hydrology report. He requested the Planning Commission's ruling on the variance and Use Permit because it doesn't c mply with the Hillside Zoning regulations, the project is too large for the lot, and the setback requirements are not acceptable. Upon questioning by Councilmember McCowen, Mr. Bellows stated that he objects to the entire project, not just the 20 foot front setback. Dr. Fred Graeber, 3600 Orr Springs Road, Ukiah, provided a history of how this project began and noted that he worked with an architect, who in turn worked with the City's Planning Department in order to satisfy the Hillside Ordinance setback requirements. He inquired as to why Mr. Bellows obtained first right of refusal on the property. Upon questioning by members of the City Council, Mr. Graeber explained that they originally Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 8 of 12 wanted to have a guest house on the property and didn't look at options for situating their home differently on the property. He discussed situating the house closer to the street instead of up on the hill, noting that the adjacent property owner has an easement in the rear of the property. With regard to the shed located on both parcels, as notated on the site map, he explained that the shed has been demolished. He went on to discuss the terrain of the property and Council's inquiry of situating the home at another location on the property. Planning Director Stump referred to attachment #2-2 in the an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels, and n( shifting the location of the house so as to have 10 feet discuss the removal of the shed subsequent to the ph~ Report that provides ~at Staff recommends sides. He went on to In. Dr. Grabber explained that their plan is to buil( other home on the property as a guest house. house to the south. for ti" ad not conside~ Ives and use the the main Public Hearing Closed: 7:52 p,m. Considerable discussion followed project. Topics discussed includ( big for the lot, the proximity of the p of Mr. Bellows' home, whether the Bel home, the quality of th foundation for the the building evaluate the them. the any ina stu~ It wa~ is s~ an( Coun~ e prop, and Staff related to the ~ite plan for the house is too cent resident, the roof line ~1 down on the Graeber for construction of the by Plan g Director Stump that once tted, the City's consulting engineer will II recommend certain designs to mitigate Associ; prop the nance previously approved for the Bellows' Co~ McC( it would ~ore of an ir and more ;aping sh that if the project were located further up the hill, ;ion to the Bellows'. It was his recommendation that lighting be located on the east side of the project. Planning explained that the Planning Commission adopted conditions of approval landscaping. The applicants submitted a site plan with considerable ; between their parcel and the Bellows' parcel. He noted that Council could require a landscaping plan be submitted by the applicant to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. He went on to discuss condition #40 related to outdoor lighting. Councilmember McCowen drew attention to the existing live oak seedlings in the southern portion of the property and recommended they be protected unless the driveway is enlarged, necessitating their removal. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 9 of 12 Planning Director Stump referred to condition #32 concerning retaining trees on property. Councilmember McCowen discussed the difference between seedlings and trees and noted his concern for the northern boundary of property, and that more landscaping in that location would create more of a fire danger. In this case it may not be advisable. He is satisfied with the conditions concerning landscaping and lighting issues, noting that lighting should be shielded and downcast. Tape 2 Discussion continued with regard to the recommend~ Graeber's home so that it blends in with trees and is nc dark color roof for Dr. to the Bellows'. Councilmember McCowen voiced his concern property that extend into the property to the approval that only diseased trees should scheduled for removal or pruning during some trE and recomm, He inq od. the north of the a condition of y trees are Planning Director Stump referred to conditi( whether the condition should spec[ supervise the pruning of the tre~ concerns with regard to pruning of are recorded in the minutes of their it be part of the conditio~ discussion ensued regarding an arbod ne the trees or if an arbor[st can oted th; Planning Commission had heir c. and directions to Staff ~i~recommended M/S Rodin/Baldwi filed by Mr. vote: AYES: Coun None. ABS pportin! Plant and Catheri Commission's action and deny the appeal , carried by the following roll call Baldwin, and Mayor Larson. NOES: !NT: None. 1 Mayor and in pc visited the s ,n of at the Coun~ Demolish the Structures Over Years Old ns Street, Ukiah ~ck of a site visit is grounds for recusal on this matter ~embers it was determined that all Councilmembers had Planning Direct¢ ip discussed his Staff Report to Council. The reason for the demolition is to pre the site for future development. He advised that the Demolition Permit Review Committee found the subject buildings to be the oldest commercial structures on East Perkins Street. 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, which he discussed in detail with Council. It was noted that the property was the former site of the old Farmers Club. Public Hearing Opened: 8:21 p.m. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 10 of 12 Grant Leschin, Project Manager for Marin Ventures, explained that they have worked in a collaborated effort to develop a plan that would be appealing to the City. He explained that his company is in the early stages of design for their new development and has been working with City Staff on a Site Development Plan. He requested Council's approval of the project. With regard to the demolition process, he advised that they would like to begin construction in the Spring of 2005. In response to inquiries by Council, Mr. Leschin advised that they have made an effort to acquire the property to the east of the proposed demolition, they are currently in discussions with the current tenants of the existing structure, and Marin Ventures plans a commercial project at that location. Councilmember Baldwin stated that he is opposed t, location. h business at that Public Hearing Closed: 8:25 p.m. A brief discussion followed relative to desi, Planning Director Stump stated that the a with the City to meet the design guidelines and major gateway of the City. He discuss~ development, noting that Staff has :hese m. )mmercial iments. remely in working aware that Perkins Street is a ~nsportation issues and future with the applicant. M/S Baldwin/McCowen a ~1 t finding that as mitigat~ East Perkins Street ~d to roll call vote: AYI : Larson. NOES: None. ;claration, based on the located at 308/310 insigni ance, carried by the following wen, Rodin, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor None. M/S Street, Smitl ition Permit for 308/310 East Perkins roll call · Councilmembers McCowen, Rodin, ~n. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 8. C :IL Counci ~ber railroad pr~ on Perki~ reported that, thanks to the Roots of Motive Power, the will undergo a cleanup. Councilmemb reported that he will not be able to attend the Inland Water and Power Comm ',IWPC) meeting tomorrow at the Ukiah Conference Center. On the IWPC agenda a report from the Army Corp of Engineers concerning increasing the height of the dam and a report from Redwood Valley Water District seeking IWPC approval of their two projects. The City Council will have to approve it. The Hop/Kiln project is beginning to go through the Mendocino County Planning Commission process. The project calls for about 500 units to be located east of the former Masonite plant site. He advised that Council should be aware of any impacts to the sewer treatment plant and Ranney collector with this project. After a brief discussion it was decided that Councilmember Rodin and City Manager Horsley would attend the IWPC meeting tomorrow on the City's behalf. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 11 of 12 Adjourned to sit as the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency: 8:35 p.m. 10. CLOSED SESSION a. G.C. ~54957.6- Conference with Labor Negotiator Employee Negotiations: Directors and City Manager Labor Negotiator: Candace Horsley No Closed Session required. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meetin~ ourned at 8:35 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting November 17, 2004 Page 12 of 12 MEMO Agenda Item: 5b TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~z~*~~;~l~, L~;~~.~_;~/.4./ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of December 1, 2004 DATE: December 10, 2004 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes of the December 1, 2004 City Council meeting no later than Tuesday, December 14th. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Memos: Minutes - Dec 2004 ITEM NO.: 7a DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004 Payments made during the month of November 2004, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 58563-58654, 58732-58937, 59013-59105 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: 54494 Payroll check numbers: 58655-58730, 58938-59012 Payroll Manual check numbers' 58731 Void check numbers' none 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 November 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 Candace Ho~sley, City Mai~er KRS:WORD/AGEN DAPNOV04 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2004 Demand Payments approved: 58563-58654, 58732-58870, 58871-58937, 59013-59105, 54494 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $134,167.03 600 Airport 131 Equipment Reserve Fund $1,442.46 611 Sewer Construction Fund 140 Park Development $1,214.10 612 City/District Sewer 141 Museum Grants $2,971.03 615 City/District Sewer Replace 143 N.E.H.I. Museum Grant $578.62 620 Special Sewer Fund (Cap Imp) 150 Civic Center Fund 640 San Dist Revolving Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund 650 Spec San Dist Fund (Cap Imp) 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants $2,850.46 661 Landfill Corrective Fund 205 Sup Law Enforce. Srv. Fund (SLESF) 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 206 Community Oriented Policing 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 678 Public Safety Dispatch 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $494.38 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 695 Golf 250 Special Revenue Fund 696 Warehouse/Stores 260 Downtown Business Improvement 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 290 Bridge Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 310 Special Aviation Fund 800 Electric 315 Airport Capital Improvement 805 Street Lighting Fund 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant $10,167.11 820 Water 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $261,002.00 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 900 Special Deposit Trust 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 340 SB325 Reimbursement Fund 920 Liability Fund 341 S.T.P. 940 Payroll Posting Fund 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 345 Off-System Roads Fund 960 Community Redev. Agency 410 Conference Center Fund $8,193.90 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 550 Lake Mendocino Bond $2,000.00 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 575 Garage $1,498.94 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. 975 Russian River Watershed Assoc 976 Mixing Zone Policy JPA PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 58655-58730 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 22274-22417 PAYROLL PERIOD 10/24/04-11/06/04 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 58731, 58938-59012 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 22418-22559 PAYROLL PERIOD 11/07/04-11/20/04 VOID CHECK NUMBERS:NONE TOTALDEMAND PAYMENTS TOTALPAYROLLVENDOR CHECKS TOTALPAYROLLCHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $32,346.96 $376,173.98 $73,825.80 $47,963.91 $26,247.37 $753.12 $25,673.11 $22,538.02 $1,721.72 $3,308.62 $2,761.69 $46,869.28 $713,425.35 $12,240.29 $3,039.37 $154,708.01 $1,046,089.80 $8,946.11 $129,501.08 $274,759.38 $8,124.52 $1,579.62 $50,000.00 $1,449.58 $17,176.13 $26,099.10 $3,535,568.61 $65,822.95 $114,966.57 $346,563.46 $4,062,921.59 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance Oo O~ ~j · o > c> {2> r.j ~ i o~ > O0 0000 §oo~ooogoogoog O0 000 O0 O0 00000 000000000 ~~o~o~oo~o 00000000000000 00000000000000 ??? O O O O O 0 o 0 o~oo O OO OOOO OOOO OOOO ~~0 O0 O0 O0 O0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO ~ OO OO ~oo~~oo~o~~ ~ ~ ~ HH HHH HH ~HHHHH~~ 0000 o I i H H oo ~o ~o o~ o m H O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o cq , o o t---I H o o o o o o o · °g · 0 0 ~D 0 0 o o · , o o o 0 0 H 0 0 o © O~ 00000000 0 ~ 0 H~ 40~ D~ 0 OE~ O~ E~O ~J · > 0000000 0 ~0 O0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 00 00 0000 0000 0000 00 ~~o 0 0 0 · 00 0 0~ O~ ,< O~ E~o (2> o o o o o o 120 CO o · -I ~ c> ,-4 O4 ~ O 00 ,-4 O ,---I O O OOOO OOOO OOOO O O co · --I I.~ O O O O ~ O O O O O4 O t42 O ¢:~ O O ~ CO ,,--4 O ~ O O O O f'~ ¢4 ~ ~ · ~ ' ~ ' O (7~ O O O (7/ O O O ~ ~  O ~ O O ~ ~ O O O O O O · . O O · O O CO 00 LC} LC} · . r~ O O ~o O © O H 0 > O~ E~O 0 . > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00 CO CO oo 0 O0 0 0 Oo n~ O~ O0 ~o o~ C, > 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0000 0000 0 0000 o 0 oos§o~soos~oss O0 0 O0 ~0 0000000000~000 oo~oo~o~o~ O0 O~ ~ ~0 · o · , · o . · o .... o O00OO000~O000 00000000~00~ 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 Oo ,< ,--I o [-f.,] H m ~m 0 ~ i O~ ~0 rJ · 0 > 0 00 0 000 000 I I 00 00 o o o o 0 0 0 © · oo ~0 O4O4O 0 r'~ ["".. O0 r..) ,--i ~ ,---4 or.r} ¥ 0 ¢.., ~ 0 © 0 Or~ ~0 0 i ~000 000 O~ > (D 000000000000 000000000000 0000 0000 o o o o 00 o0 o ~ 0'1 o o o o 0 O0 O0 00000000 ~~oo o~ooooo oo~~ ~00000 000~~ 00000000 0 0 oSSooso~so 0000000~000 0000~000~00 00~0~0~, ~ O0 ~ O0 oo~°~°o o ~° oo oooo ~°° o~°o omm o ~HHHO o o o OO ~000000000000 000000000000 0 ~ 0 H ¢4 0 r~ ~.1 o°¢~ O~ > 0 0 o o · · o o 0 , 0 · Oo 0 ~ O0 H OU~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 OO ~1 ~ O~ ~o ~j · o i O~ · 0 0 0 O0 ~o~ o o o o oo oo co oo o o o o ~o o o o o o o o o o oO o o o o ~o~ 0000000 0 0 · 0 · o ~4~ <2> o o · o~ · 0 I.D c> ~oo~o~ O0 O0 0000000 ~oo~~ ~~ooo ~0~00~ ~o~o ~0 ~ · , .... 0 ~oo~o O0 ~ 0 ~HH~ 0 0 :>>> ~}OH i ,,~ r.j rj H H H i 0000 0 0 0 0 0000 o o o0 co o o o o o o o o o o ,-4 oooo oooo oooo o o 0000 0000 .... 0000 00c0 o · . . o ~ o 0:::: O~ O~m~ ~ 0 i:z:: 0 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0000 °~° o oh 0 0 o o o o HHHHHHHHHHHH ~000000000000 0000 0000000 mffi 0000 ~0000 H 0 rJ · 0 > o oooooooooooooooooooooo~ oooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo 0 0 o cq O~ o~ 0 i 0 HHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH 00000000000000000 ~00000000000000000 HHHHHHH 0000000 0000000 0 O0 O0 oo~oo~§oo O0 O0 O0 000000000 O0 O0 O0 000000000 0 0 120 0 0 ~ o o 0 0 0 · · ~ ° ~ ° ~o~oo 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 D D ~0 ~0 ~ O0 O~ ~ H H O~ ~J ~o i,-i ~ r.j . > ~ ? ~, 000 00 00 O0 O0 ~0 O0 ~ 0 00 O0 0 ~oo 00000 oo8 O0 000 · 0 , 00~ · , 0 0 0 · 0 0 H 0 H · C} 0 ~ 00 00 · 6'40 · 0 CO 0 0 · ~° [..~ i I--I :#: C~O ~ 0 U 0 0 O~ 0 000 0 0 o o oo o ~0 {210 oo o O0 ~° LD 000000 000000 0 O0 00000 O0 0 0 0 0000 00 O00 · · 000 · , ~q ~ ~..-q · 0 zzz z~ ~0~: 0 000000 0~0000 O0 ~00~ ~oo~oo © ~ ~0~ ~oo z O~ ~o ~j . o > o oooo oooo ~o 0000 0 O0 0000000 0 0 oo ~00 o o o oo O~ O~ HO 0 0 O~ rj · > o o o oo OO0O120 ~o ...-I o o o o 120 u~ u~ o o oo o~ ~ oooooooo oo ooooooo ooooooo 0 0 oo~~;~o 00~~00 00000000 ~o~oo ...... ~ 0 OU~ ~;~o ~000 0 ~o OO © 0 rj r-,4 OH ~ i ~o ~oo~ H,< '~ O~ C~ 000000 000000 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000000 O0 0 oo8 O0 O0 ~0 i o~ > LD 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000 0 00 120 o o ooo o o o 120 0 0 o oo oo oo oo oooooooooooooooo ~00~0~000~0~ ~~000~0~000 ~~00~0~0~000 00000000~00000 c~ o o · · · 0 o o o · o oo~ oo ooo · 0 ooo · 0 ~0~ O0000000000HH o o ~ 0 H .000 i ~ ~ ~ 0 ~:o i O0 ,<H O~ ~o ~j · > LD o o o oo o o o o o o o O0 0 0 u~ o ~ o · o o o~ r"q · 0 o ~ H H H o~o 0 0 o o o0 c0 00 00 o o o~ o o o o o 03 c0 03 co oo ooooo ooooo oooo oooo oo oo ooooooo ooooooo O O o o o~ o~ · o oo~ oo ooooo ~°°~° ~°°~° o~ oo O ~ o o o o o o H ~o o ~oo~ooo §~°° oo~°o o ~ o orJ'} ~oo ooo O~ O~ ~J H H o~°o o,< ~o H ~ r.J · O O 0 0 0 0 CO O0 oo O0 O 04 O l,~ r.-i OOOOOO OO O OO O 0 0 o 0 O O O O O O . O O O'~ O'1 , · -I O O O4 O · O ~ O ~ SSooso OO O OOOOOO O O O~ © ~ OH~ O O O · 0 ~° o~§o O O OOOO ~° o o H~ ~ HHH~O U~ o u~ MO0000 ~ ,-t o o o o o o o ix) o o t.~ i..~ u~ o oo 0 0 o o · . c> · o o0 c~ ~o~ o o oo , 0 o oo ch c~ c~ · · · , ~u~O O~)H 0 E~O n~ 0 O~ E~o > o oo oooo ~°° o o · o ~°~ ~0~ ~ ~ H 0000o ~~0 ~°~° ~ 0 o 0000~ o~o~ o~° ~g~ ~ffi ~0000 o~ O~ rj · o {rD 1:~ i o~ ~o > oS o o °~ ~.~ o o 00 00 ~o r-q r"'l o o o o o o o o o0 oo co 0o o0 co c~ f~ o o o o o o · . o o ~o ~o · . o o · . o o o o oo~ O~ o I i o~ oo ~o Ho o H 0 ~.o o~ H ~ O~ ~ o o o o o o o u'l LD 0'3 o~ o o c~ c~ o o o o o o o o o o 00 ~0 0 0 o o o o o o o o · ~° · o · oo o o o 0~ o~ O0 ~° o ~ ~ o 0 0 E~U H~1 O~ HO ~o O> ~0 o~ ~o 0 ~ 00 0 ~ CO 00 00 00 o~ oogoo~§oo O0 O0 O0 000000000 000~ 0000 00 00 00 ~0 IX) r:O [13 000 · 0 · , , 000~ 0 · 0 go oo~ oo~oo~ o 0000000 oo~oo~ o 000000~0 000000~0 ~oo 0~00 0 O0 ~~0 HHHHO 0 H OH ~000000000 0 ~0 o o,< ~o r.j . 1 O~ O~ O~ O~ 00 w...t 1:2> ~ 88oo8ooo O0 000 00000000 0 CD CD 0 00 CO ~0 00 O0 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000 0 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 o 0 · . . L~ 0 O~ 0 }--t O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000000 000000000000000 ~o~o~~o~o 0 ~ ~0 O~ 0~~00~0~0~ 000000000~0~0~ 00000000~0~0~ 0 0 0000 00000000~ o~ ~o rJ . > 000~ 0000 O0 0000 0000 00 O00 000 00 0 0 00 O0 00 o~ 0 00 0 0 0 0000 00~0 o~ 0 0 O0 · 0 · °~ Cq ~1Cq · 0 · , 0 0 kid · 0 0 0 o~ 0 0 0 . · °~ · r~ r.~ o HHO 0 0 0 ¢4 · 00 00 · 00 00 00 00 · 00 oo~ ooo ~° ~ ~ o o o ~ o H ~ ~H ~ ~ o ~ o~ o~ o o~ ~0000 H i ~oo o H~ ~J ~X O~ o o o o o c0 co co co oooo oooo oooo o ooo co ~o o o o o co co 00 co 00 00 o o o · o o co · o o · o 0 ,< · © o o o o o · 0 , ooo · 0 0 · , H 0 ~o ~oo ~ o o o o 0 0 o o O~ r~ · > ~ 0 0 0 E~o o o o~ H ~ rJ · o 0 0 o · m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r-t o o o o o o o~ o~ o ~ o ,~ co · . °~ <2> o~ o o · O~ © i--i H O~ rJ . 0 0 ~0 0 000 oo co co o o o oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo oo 0000 0000 0 O00 00 00 O0 O0 0 0 o°o°O ~0 O~ r..4 ,.-.] HO r..JO O~ °~ °°~ ~o ~ ~ H k"4 ~ [.z., O OH o o o o o o t~ o o o o o o o oo o o o O0 o o ~0 · o , I.-I (DO oo~ o o o oo . 0 0 · , 0 · o · 0 0 o oo~ o o o o o · 0 o o o · , o f.~ o ~r,j O~ r.d ~ ~ H OE-* ~0 ~0 0,< H ~ r,j · o > o O0 O0 0000000 o~oo~o 0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o oh O~ u3 [I3 0 0 oo o · o o g gg oog ooo · 0 g o o · o o 0 i · g o o o 0 · cq o rj'} o or~ o ~8888g ~ ~0000 2::: 0 o~ ~J · o > 0 H H H ~:~ o0o r.j ~ rj o~ OOOO OO oo~ OOOO °~ 0000 00 00 00 O OO OO OO OO 0000000000000000 OOOO~~~~ ~~OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o 0 OOoO O OO · 0 . O O O · , oo ~ OO OO O .0 · OO O OO~ OOOO SS~°g°°SS°°S~S OO OO OO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~oo~o~~o~ooo~ OO~OOOOOOOOOOOO ~ OO ~O OOO H~ ~H ~ HHHH ~ ~H ~ HHHH O r.80 HHH © o i O~ E~O 0 > 0 0000 ~oo~ 0000 00 00 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 H HHHHHNHHHH ¥ 0 H o © H rj E~H ,< o E~OO HHHHHHHHHH 00000000000000 00000000000000 0000000000 0000000000 o~~oo~o o~o~oo ~ 0000000000000000 0 0 0 oo oo oo oo oo oooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooo o ~ ~o oo oo o~~oo~o~o o~o~oo~o~oo 0 0 O0 ~0 ~0 0 ~ 0 O0 O0 O0 000000000 o o o o 00 c0 S o oo o oo oo oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo oo o~ oo oo oo oo ooooooooooooooo 0 0 ~° o o oo · . 0 o o o · . . .~---I o o . . o6'46',,,1 r.J} H fJ'J0 OO OO OO OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO ~O O~ ~O 00000~0~~000 O0 O0 O0 O0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO~~ ~oo~oo~oo~oo~ OO OO OO OO O~ H r.~ r-do 00000000000000 000000000000000000000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000 00000000~0~0~~0000 00 00 00 · · 00 · 00 00 . 00 00 00~: 0 oo~ o o,~ ~ooo~oo~oo 000 O0 O0 00000000000 00000000000 O0 ~0 · · 0 ....... ~oo~oo~o O0 O0 ~00000000000 o o~ rJ · > o o o o 0000 oooo oo ~o~ o oo o~ 0000 0 0 0 0 '' ~o i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 · , ~ ~ ~ 00000 · · .~ 0 0 0 ~ 0000 · · o o o ~ oooo 0 ~ 0 ~ ~~ oo ~00 o~oo ~~0 ~r.j O~ ,<oo ~ r-.4 ~0000 CD 0 120 120 O0 ~0 D~ ~ <2> 0 q-4 ~ 0 o o o o o o , 0 o o · 0 o o , ~° t'N1 ~0 CO oo~ o ITEM NO. 7b DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR 25, 35, 45, 50, 70 AND 75 FOOT CLASS 3 WESTERN RED CEDAR POLES TO BELL LUMBER & POLE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,646.48. Quotations were requested for the purchase of 25, 35, 45, 50 70 and 75 foot Class 3 Western Red Cedar Poles. Requests for Quotations were sent to seven vendors; two bids were received and opened by the City Clerk on November 30, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. The poles will be used for maintenance and reconductoring projects. Appropriate funds were budgeted in the 2004/2005 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. The lowest bidder was Bell Lumber & Pole Company with a total bid of $23,646.48 including tax and freight. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for the purchase of 25, 35, 45, 50, 70 and 75 foot Class 3 Western Red Cedar Poles in the amount of $23,646.48 to Bell Lumber & Pole Company. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: 1 ) Bid Tabulation APPROVED: ~~'q?&¢,,~% Candace Horsley, City M~§er Attachment#1 VARIOUS SIZED WESTERN RED CEDAR CLASS 3 POLES Bell Lumber & Pole Company Mendo Mill & Lumber Company $23,646.48 $44,499.22 AGENDA ITEM NO: 7c MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR LEGAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO RENEWING AND EXTENDING THE ANNUAL CONTRACT WITH WEATHERFORD AND TAAFFE Summary: Continuation of legal and engineering services by Weatherford and Taaffe for the purpose of reviewing and directing the City Staff on various water related issues. The Weatherford firms have been supporting and guiding the City since 1992 on all aspects of water permits and rights. The services are billed on an hourly basis at rates approved by the City. Staff is requesting $100,000 of unencumbered funds within budget account 820.3901.250.000 be authorized for renewing the annual contract. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the expenditure of unencumbered funds in the amount of $100,000 within budget account 820.3901.250.000 for legal and engineering services related to renewing the annual contract. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS- Disapprove the expenditure request and provide direction to staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Candace Horsley, City Manager None Approved: candace R0rsTey, lity Manager ITEM NO. 7d DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH DATA INSTINCT FOR SERVICES TO THE RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION This agenda item asks the City Council to approve a consulting agreement with Data Instincts for the Russian River Watershed Association ("RRWA"). The contract will cost $25,500 to be paid by RRWA. A copy of the contract is attached as Attachment 1. The City of Ukiah is the "Administrative Agency" for the Russian River Watershed Association ("RRWA"). As the Administrative Agency the City performs administrative functions for the RRWA, manages the RRWA funds and contracts with consultant on its behalf. The City is required to follow its own procurement ordinances and regulations, when it contracts on behalf of RRWA. The Water Quality working group of RRWA has selected Data Instincts, a survey research firm, to conduct a survey within the unincorporated areas of the Ukiah Valley and Sonoma County and within the cities of Ukiah, Healdsburg, Windsor, and Rohnert Park. The survey will seek information about community awareness and opinions on issues related to storm water and storm water pollution. The results of the survey will be tabulated and submitted to the RRWA. For full details concerning the survey and its value, see Scope of Work, attached to the contract as Exhibit A. The working group sent an RFP to three firms to perform this work. A copy of the RFP is attached as Attachment 2. At a regular meeting in November the working group unanimously selected Data Instinct, based on its proposal. A sheet tabulating the three proposals is attached as Attachment 3. The process followed by the working group complies with Ukiah City Code Section 1522.C.2 which contains the rules for selecting a consultant to perform under a professional services contract. The contract requires City Council approval, because it exceeds $10,000. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve and authorize City Manager to sign contract with Data Instinct for $25,500. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/a Citizen Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: N/A Russian River Watershed Association David J. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager, Reg Cullen, Engineer with $onoma County 1. Consultin~Contract, 2. RFP, 3. Tabulation Candace Horsley, C~Manager December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Public agencies in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties with responsibility for water or sewer systems or involvement with water rights issues belong to the Association, the purpose of which is to facilitate cooperation among multiple agencies on watershed issues. ~TrACHUENT.__/_. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES This Agreement, made and entered into this day of December, 2004, ("Effective Date") by and between CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as "City," as the Administrative Agency under the Amended Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") forming the Russian River Watershed Association ("RRWA") and Data Instincts, a [corporation, partnership, LLP, LLC, sole proprietorship], hereinafter referred to as "Consultant." RECITALS This Agreement is predicated on the following facts: a. City is the Administrative Agency under the MOU and is authorized to contract for consulting services on behalf of the RRWA. Consultant has been selected to provide services to RRWA, as described in the Scope of Work, attached hereto, as Exhibit A. b. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession and perform the services required by this Contract. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at his sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. 1.0 1.1 1.2. 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 TERMS OF AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant shall provide the services as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and shall complete those services for the not-to-exceed amount set forth in section 3.1, below, even if they take longer or cost more than Consultant estimated when preparing that Exhibit. Additional Services. Additional services, if any, shall only proceed upon written agreement between City and Consultant. The written Agreement shall be in the form of an Amendment to this Agreement. "Additional services" means services that are different from the services set forth in Exhibit A and do not include additional time or unanticipated costs to perform the services set forth in Exhibit A. CONDUCT OF WORK Time of Completion. Consultant shall commence performance of services as required by the Scope of Work on or after the Effective Date and perform the services in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. Consultant understands and agrees that the City reserves the right to use other employees or independent contractors to perform the same or similar services during the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall complete all requested work to the City's reasonable satisfaction, even if contract disputes arise or Consultant contends it is entitled to further compensation. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES Basis for Compensation. For the performance of the professional services of this Agreement, Consultant shall be compensated on a time and expense basis not to exceed a maximum dollar amount of $23,500. Labor charges shall be based upon Consultant's standard hourly billing rates as set forth in Exhibit A, which shall include all direct and indirect costs, and expenses of every kind or nature. Subcontractor Payment. The use of subconsultants or other services to perform a portion of the work of this Agreement shall be approved by City prior to commencement of work. The cost of sub- consultants shall be in accordance with the Schedule of Charges attached as Exhibit "A." Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 1 of 8 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.1 Terms of Payment. Payment to Consultant for services rendered in accordance with this contract shall be based upon submission of monthly invoices for the work satisfactorily performed prior to the date of invoice less any amount already paid to consultant, which amounts shall be due and payable within 30 days after receipt by City. Invoices shall be accompanied by documentation sufficient to enable City to determine work performed and progress made. ASSURANCES OF CONSULTANT Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for its acts or omissions. Consultant (including its agents, servants, and employees) is not City's agent, employee, or representative for any purpose. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is solely to City. Consultant has no interest and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of the Agreement. Consultant shall not in the performance of this Agreement employ a person having such an interest. INDEMNIFICATION Insurance Liability. Without limiting Consultant's obligations arising under Paragraph 5.2 Consultant shall not begin work under this Agreement until it procures and maintains for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with its performance under this Agreement. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Insurance Services Office ("ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage Form No. CG 00 01 11 85. 2. ISO Form No. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 "any auto" or Code 8, 9 if no owned autos and endorsement CA 0025. 3. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability Insurance. 4. Professional Liability Insurance covering damages which may result from errors, omissions, or acts of professional negligence by Consultant. B. Minimum Limits of Insurance Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work performed under this Agreement, or the aggregate limit shall be twice the prescribed per occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 4. Professional Liability Covera.qe: $500,000 combined single limit per occurrence. If the coverage is an aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must apply separately to the work performed under this Agreement, or the aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit. C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 2 of 8 Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self- insured retentions as respects to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. D. Other Insurance Provisions The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coveraqes a. The City, it officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects; liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, products and completed operations of the Consultant, premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope-of-protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. b. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects to the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. d. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 2. Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from Consultant's performance of the work, pursuant to this Agreement. 3. Professional Liability Covera.qe If written on a claims-made basis, the retroactivity date shall be the effective date of this Agreement. The policy period shall extend from 8/01/03 to 8/01/04. 4. All Covera.qes Each Insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. E. Acceptability of Insurers Except for professional liability insurance, insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A:Vll and who are admitted insurers in the State of California. Professional liability insurance may be underwritten by Lloyds of London. F. Verification of Coveraqe Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates of Insurance and with odginal Endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement. The Certificates and Endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The Certificates and Endorsements are to be on forms provided or approved by the City. Where by statute, the City's Workers' Compensation - related forms cannot be used, equivalent forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted. All Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 3 of 8 5.2 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Aug 2003 Page 4 of G. Certificates and Endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before Consultant begins the work of this Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. If Consultant fails to provide the coverages required herein, the City shall have the dght, but not the obligation, to purchase any or all of them. In that event, the cost of insurance becomes part of the compensation due the contractor after notice to Consultant that City has paid the premium. Subcontractors If Consultant uses subcontractors or sub-consultants, it shall cover them under its policies or require them to separately comply with the insurance requirements set forth in this Paragraph 5.1. Indemnification. Notwithstanding the foregoing insurance requirements, and in addition thereto, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, RRWA, and their officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, including court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or omission committed by Consultant or it's officers, agents or employees while performing services under this Agreement. Consultant's liability for professional negligence shall be limited to $1,000,000. As to events which occur during Consultant's performance of this Agreement, City shall hold Consultant harmless from and defend Consultant against all claims, liability, damage, or loss arising out of any injury or death of any person or damage to or destruction of property attributable to the negligent or willfully wrongful act or omission of City or its officers and employees, where the injury, death or damage is caused by the sole and active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City's employees. CONTRACT PROVISIONS Ownership of Work. All documents furnished to Consultant by City and all reports and supportive data prepared by Consultant under this Agreement are City's property and shall be given to City at the completion of Consultant's services at no additional cost to City. Deliverables are identified in the Scope-of-Work, Attachment "A". Governinq Law. Consultant shall comply with the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, and all local governments having jurisdiction over this Agreement. The interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by California law and any action arising under or in connection with this ,Agreement must be filed in a Court of competent jurisdiction in Mendocino County. Entire Agreement. This Agreement plus its Attachment(s) and executed Amendments set forth the entire understanding between the parties. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect. Modification. No modification of this Agreement is valid unless made with the agreement of both parties in writing. Assignment. Consultant's services are considered unique and personal. Consultant shall not assign, transfer, or sub-contract its interest or obligation under all or any portion of this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Waiver. No waiver of a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement shall be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of the same or any other covenant, term or condition or a waiver of the covenant, term or condition itself. Litigation. In the event a suit or action is instituted to enforce any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall collect, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by statutes, such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees in such suit or action in both trial and appellate courts. LS Agreement 8 6.9 6.10 7.0 Termination. This Agreement may only be terminated by either party: 1) for breach of the Agreement; 2) because funds are no longer available to pay Consultant for services provided under this Agreement; or 3) City has abandoned and does not wish to complete the project for which Consultant was retained. A party shall notify the other party of any alleged breach of the Agreement and of the action required to cure the breach. If the non-breaching fails to cure the breach within the time specified in the notice, the contract shall be terminated as of that time. If terminated for lack of funds or abandonment of the project, the contract shall terminate on the date notice of termination is given to Consultant. City shall pay the Consultant only for services performed and expenses incurred as of the effective termination date. In such event, as a condition to payment, Consultant shall provide to City all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder, subject to off-set for any direct or consequential damages City may incur as a result of Consultant's breach of contract. Duplicate Oriqinals. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate originals, each beadng the odginal signature of the parties. When so signed, each such document shall be admissible in administrative or judicial proceedings as proof of the terms of the Agreement between the parties. NOTICES Whenever notice is permitted or required under this Agreement, it shall be deemed given when personally served by personal delivery, fax or overnight courier, or when deposited in the United States mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: City of Ukiah Cio City Manager Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA. 95482 FAX: (707) 462-6204 8.0 SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written: CONSULTANT BY: PRINT NAME: Date: CITY OF UKIAH BY: Date: CANDACE HORSLEY, CITY MANAGER ATTEST BY: Date: MARIE ULVILA, CITY CLERK Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 5 of 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAVID J. RAPPORT, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF UKIAH Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 6 of 8 Aug 2003 LS Agreement Page 7 of 8 Affachment # ~-~ COUNTY OF SONOMA PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2829 (707) 565-1900 FAX (707) 565-1103 22 October 2004 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A BASELINE SURVEY ON STORM WATER AWARENESS Introduction The Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA) invites proposals from consulting firms interested in providing public awareness research services for a baseline telephone survey of general public understanding of storm water issues and storm water pollution. Background The RRWA consists of cities, counties and special districts who work together to address regulatory requirements and watershed protection. The RRWA's mission is to facilitate partnerships across political boundaries that promote good stewardship of water resources. The RRWA is concerned with storm water issues, concepts, and storm water pollution. The RRWA has a long range goal of developing a public outreach program to raise public awareness about storm water issues and reduce pollution in storm water. To achieve that goal, the RRWA has chosen to target its outreach effort where the need is greatest. So, to establish a control baseline for public outreach the RRWA will hire a consultant to conduct a telephone survey to assess residents' baseline level awareness of storm water issues and storm water pollution. This survey will also serve as a tool for effectiveness evaluation for RRWA members seeking to establish a baseline of public storm water awareness within each NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit boundary. The baseline survey, analysis, and report may eventually be used to evaluate effectiveness of city and county public education and outreach activities. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to develop a baseline assessment of general public understanding of storm water issues and storm water pollution. The results of the survey will be used by the Phase 2 MS4 municipalities and the County to establish a baseline for the Public Education and Outreach elements of their individual Storm Water Management Plans. Submittal of proposals The proposed scope of work is enclosed. Please carefully review the entire scope of work before submitting a proposal. If any significant omissions or ambiguities in the proposed scope of work come to the RRWA's attention while the draft is under review by interested firms, the RRWA will make a uniform written response to all parties. Also enclosed is a Copy of the City of Ukiah's Standard Service Agreement which the selected consultant will sign. The RRWA has a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Ukiah to act as its administrative agency. Please review this agreement and state whether your firm will accept the agreement as is. Otherwise, propose specific language changes in order for the agreement to be signed. A map of the geographic area to survey as well as population statistics are also attached to this RFP. Additional information about the City of Santa Rosa/County of Sonoma/Sonoma County Water Agency Storm Water Management Plan and NPDES permit can be found at the following web site: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/then selecting "Public Works" followed by "Storm Water". Proposals shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic from and include the following: 1. The consultants proposed scope of work and schedule. 2. A statement of similar work previously performed, including at least three references with the name of the organization, client contact person, and contact information. 3. A statement of qualifications, including a list of key personnel to be assigned to the project. Resumes for key personnel must include education, experience, and expertise in this type of work. 4. A staffing plan that includes estimated hours and key personnel devoted to any particular portion or element of the project. 5. A breakdown of estimated hours per task or subtask by job class and billing schedule. The total cost of the work by consultant shall not exceed $25,000. Contact information and mailing address A. Administrative issues: Paula Stamp, County of Sonoma, PRMD, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403; PStamp@Sonoma-County.org. B. Technical issues: Reg Cullen, NPDES Engineer, County of Sonoma, PRMD, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403; RCullenl@Sonoma-County.org. Proposal Schedule Questions about the RFP are due by 4 p.m. on Wednesday 3 November to Reg Cullen at RCullen 1 @Sonoma-County.org. The deadline to submit proposals is 4 p.m. Wednesday 10 November 2004 to Paula Stamp, County of Sonoma, PRMD, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 94503. The RRWA anticipates concluding negotiations with the successful candidate on the Scope of Work by Friday 3 December. The successful candidate will be asked to make a presentation to the Board of Directors of the RRWA on Thursday 16 December 2004. The RRWA anticipates awarding the contract to the successful consultant on Friday 17 December 2004. The final report for the survey must be completed by 30 June 2005. Attachments: Map of the survey area Survey from the City of San Diego Survey from the City of Santa Rosa Population statistics for the geographic area SCOPE OF WORK Scope: Provide the Russian River Watershed Association with an accurate and statistically valid representation of community awareness and opinions on issues related to storm water and storm water pollution to be used by specific member agencies and as an association; working under the following guidelines: Goal. Establish a baseline of storm water awareness for residents of each of the six participating RRWA member agencies: 1 ) County of Sonoma, 2) County of Mendocino, 3) City of Ukiah, 4) City of Healdsburg, 5) City of Windsor, and 6) City of Rohnert Park. The City of Santa Rosa has completed its own survey. · The geographic areas for the baseline survey are: 1) unincorporated Sonoma County, 2) unincorporated Mendocino County in the Ukiah valley, 3) incorporated City of Ukiah, 4) incorporated City of Healdsburg, 5) incorporated City of Windsor, and 6) incorporated Rohnert Park. · Develop a telephone survey to gather data and dedve statistics. Sample size: The consultant shall use professional judgement and provide a stated rationale for the sample size. Within each geographic area the number of residents surveyed shall be sufficient to yield statistically significant results so that storm water outreach programs can be targeted by each of the six participating RRWA member agencies. The proposal shall break out the sample size within each survey area. Survey length: The consultant shall use professional judgement and provide a stated rationale for the survey length and survey content. · Time line for completion: 6-months after receiving authorization to proceed. The successful candidate will: 1. Prepare the survey questionnaire with parameters and present it to the participating RRWA members for approval prior to engaging in the actual telephone survey. 2. Pre-test the questionnaire. 3. Conduct the telephone interviews. 4. Tabulate and cross-tabulate results according to the parameters agreed to by RRWA (by geographic area, ethnicity, level of education, economic strata, etc.). The results must be statistically valid representations of community awareness for the individual geographic areas described above. 5. Prepare and submit electronically a *.pdf version of the draft report for review by the RRWA. 6. Revise the report based on one set of collective comments provided by the RRWA. 7. Prepare an executive summary and written report analyzing survey results. Twenty hard copies and electronic copies in *.pfd format of the final report will be delivered to the RRWA. 8. Give an oral presentation on survey results to the RRWA. 9. Provide expertise and translation services in Spanish when required to conduct the survey. To.' RRWA reviewers of proposals for a baseline survey on storm water awareness Attachment From: Reg Cullen, County of Sonoma Date: Monday 15 Nov. 2004 SUBJECT: Comparison between three proposals to conduct a telephone survey on storm water awareness The following is a table of information from the three proposals to conduct a baseline telephone survey on stormwater awareness for the RRWA. Please bring this table to our meeting tomorrow to serve as reference during our discussion of the proposals. Company Contact Data instincts Mark Millan, Principal address 239 Windsor River Rd. Suite 100 Windsor, CA 95942 Evans/McDonough Co., Inc Ruth Bemstein, Principal 436 14th Street Data Trends Gig Hitao, Sole Prop. 308 Santa Rosa Avenue Suite 820 Oakland, CA 94612 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 phone 707/836-0300 510/844-0680 Ext. 312 707/578-3235 fax -0842 -0690 12 15 e-mail *.pdf uncertain 750 = 125/region +/- 3.6% at 95% CI total +/- 8.69 for each region < 10-min Will subcontract. CATI. Random via ZIP code. evenings and weekends >18-yrs proposal number of pages proposal form number of questions number of samples confidence time on telephone per sampling methodology CD-ROM *.pdf uncertain 500 (variable per region) +/- 4.4% at 95% CI total 19.6% for Mendocino Co. 15-min Subcontracted call center. Random by phone number. Will meet with RRWA to "determine the appropriate methodology given your goals and budget needs." evenings will match demographics when calls will occur age threshold Principal rate S/hr 135 175 Associate rate S/hr 105 125 clerical rate S/hr 35 OK w/minor changes Ukiah contract agreement available Spanish translation yes, at a cost of $1,500 $24,920(includesSpanish) page 1 Cost $23,500 floppy *.doc uncertain 1,620 = 270/region Purchase lists of register. voters + phone book listings + unlisted nos. Screened & anonymous. Will discuss entire area. Has own call center. Will train interviewers. not mentioned? not mentioned? 60 15 OK yes $24,850 ITEM NO. DATE' DECEMBER 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR SEVEN 50 KVA AND FIVE 75 KVA POLE MOUNT TRANSFORMERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,876.22 to WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC. The formal bid process was followed in sending a Request for Quotation (R.F.Q.) for two different size transformers. The City Clerk opened sealed bids on December 7, at 2:00 p.m. In accord with City bidding procedures, facsimile quotations were not accepted. The bidders were: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- ERMCO WESTERN STATES ELECTRIC- COOPER G.E. SUPPLY COMPANY- GE PROLEC WRATHALL & KRUSI, INC.- HOWARD INDUSTRIES GENERAL PACIFIC STEPHENS, MCCRTHY, LANDCASTER Bids were evaluated on price, delivery time, load losses, size, and availability of circuit protection. 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. The transformers will be placed in warehouse stock and will be charged out on a project-by- project basis. They have been budgeted in the 2004/05 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3646.690.000. Sufficient funds are available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bids for seven 50 KVA and five 75 KVA, pole mount transformers totaling $15,876.22 to Western States Electric. 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 APPROVED: (~2~ ~.L~'~ Candace Horsley, Ci~Manager I- z z I&l I- I- IAI 1.1.1 ITEM NO: 9,, DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ORR CREEK BRIDGE AND ORCHARD AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT SUMMARY: Under contract with the City, Leonard Charles and Associates has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City's Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue extension project. The EIR was required because the construction of the bridge could induce growth in the 95- acre Brush Street Triangle area, which in turn could cause potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. Before the City Council can approve the final design of the bridge and street extension, it must certify the EIR to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Agenda Item is intended to present the EIR to the City Council for tentative certification. Staff will return with a formal Resolution for adoption at the Council's next meeting. Depending upon EIR certification and the timing of permit issuance by State and Federal agencies, construction of the project could possibly begin dudng 2005. BACKGROUND: The original EIR for the project was prepared in 1999. It was circulated for public review, and responses to all written comments were completed. However, the City never took action to certify the EIR because the property owners, the City, and the County determined that additional dialogue was required to determine how the Brush Street Triangle might be developed in the future. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) tentatively certify the EIR for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension project; and 3) direct Staff to prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Resolution formally certifying the EIR for City Council adoption. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not take action on the EIR and provide direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Interested persons, groups, and property owners in the area noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code. Requested by: Planning and Community Development Department Prepared by: Chadey Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Addendum) 2. Recommendations from the Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission A PPROVED:"~~~-~, Candace Horsley, City'l~anager 1 In 2002, the scope of the project was revised, and certain assumed projects in the Brush Street Triangle were later withdrawn. Accordingly, the original EIR was updated and revised. It was once again distributed for public review and comment, responses to comments were completed, and a Final EIR was prepared. Recently, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared to update certain information on public service providers to ensure that the EIR is current. The Addendum also addresses changes in long-term, growth-inducing impacts that could result from the RCHDC 153-unit apartment project at the south end of the Study area. The Addendum concludes that the possible impacts that might result from such an apartment project are not substantially different from the impacts assumed for the site which were assessed in the EIR. During the past two years, the City and the County have been working on a Land Use Agreement, which is primarily intended to require County discretionary review and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for development in the Brush Street Triangle. The City and County both approved the Agreement eadier this year. The Land Use Agreement requires the County to adopt an Ordinance requiring discretionary review before the City certifies the EIR. The County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted a 45-day urgency/interim Ordinance on December 7, 2004 to allow the City to move forward with EIR certification. The BOS also directed its Staff to prepare a permanent Ordinance for its consideration next spdng. Accordingly, the EIR is now being advanced for City Council consideration. WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT?: An EIR is an informational document which is intended to inform the City, other public agency decision-makers, and the public of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed project. It is not a policy document, such as a General Plan or a zoning ordinance with specific development standards. The City must consider the information in the EIR along with other information presented during the decision- making process when making a decision whether to approve, modify, or deny the proposed project. The EIR contains the following Sections: A discussion of the environmental setting of the study area; an analysis of the significant impacts that would result from the project, a list of recommended mitigation measures to off-set the impacts; a discussion of the cumulative impacts resulting from the project; a discussion of the growth-inducing impacts; a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with the goals and policies of applicable planning and zoning documents; and a discussion of project alternatives. The Draft EIR, Final EIR and EIR Addendum combined constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves extending Orchard Avenue north to Orr Creek, constructing a four-lane bridge over the creek, and extending the street further north to Brush Street. Drainage and utility infrastructure would also be constructed as a part of the project (see detailed Project Description on page 7 of the EIR). REASONS FOR THE PROJECT: The objectives of the project are two-fold. First, to reduce traffic congestion in the vicinity of the project site caused by existing development; and secondly, to implement the City General Plan which recommends the extension of Orchard Avenue to Ford Road in order to provide an alterative north-south major arterial roadway paralleling Highway 101. This new arterial would help reduce congestion on State Street. EIR STUDY AREA: The EIR addresses the specific impacts that would be generated by constructing the proposed roadway and bridge improvements. Because these improvements may facilitate or induce development of the 95-acre Brush Street Triangle area to the north, the EIR assesses the possible growth-inducing impacts that would result from eventual development of this area. Assumptions were developed for future land uses in the Brush Street Triangle, which included heavy commercial, commercial, and mixed used (see detailed description on page 9 of the EIR). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: The EIR identifies a number of impacts that would result from the construction of the proposed improvements, as well as future growth-inducing impacts that could result from the development of the 95-acre brush Street Triangle area. Many of the impacts are minor or typical of any new development, and there are standard mitigation measures available to address these impacts. The EIR recommends mitigation measures only for those impacts that are judged to be potentially significant. The EIR concludes that potentially significant adverse impacts could result to geology/soils, hydrology, wildlife and vegetation, cultural resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, aesthetics, noise, public services, recreation, and land use (See Impact and Mitigation Summary Table on page 27 of the EIR). The EIR concludes that all project-specific impacts can be reduced to levels that are considered less than significant. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED: The EIR identifies one significant growth- inducing impact that cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided with build-out of the Brush Street Triangle. "Build-out traffic would result in insufficient vehicular storage capacity on East Perkins Street between Orchard Avenue and the Southbound Highway 101 ramps to accommodate eastbound traffic." Other potentially significant growth-inducing impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing the program-level mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. Subsequent CEQA review on the recommended Specific Plan and/or specific development project applications will need to review and, if warranted, revise these program level mitigations to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. In order to proceed with a project when an unavoidable significant impact has been identified, a statement/finding overriding the impact must be adopted. This statement/finding will be included in the formal Resolution for Council's consideration. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE EIR: During the formal public review and comment period, the City received comments on the EIR from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, Mendocino County Administrative Office, and the Mendocino Council of Governments. RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS RECEIVED (FINAL EIR): Formal responses were prepared by the consultants and published in the Final EIR. None of the comments resulted in a need to perform additional technical work, or result in a change in the analysis or conclusions contained in the EIR. CITY PATHS, OPEN SPACE, AND CREEKS COMMISSION (POSC): The City Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission recently submitted "recommendations regarding specific planning of the Brush Street Triangle." These recommendations were shared with the City Council during the POSC presentation on October 6, 2004, and are included as attachment No. 2 to this Agenda Summary Report. The recommendations are not comments on the adequacy of the EIR, and therefore no formal responses have been prepared. CONCLUSION: The City has been working on the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension project for many years. The original 1999 Draft EIR was revised in 2002, and an Addendum has recently been prepared to update certain information on public service providers to ensure that the EIR is current, and to address changes in long-term, growth-inducing impacts that could result from the RCHDC 153-unit apartment project. Responses have been prepared to all comments submitted during the formal review and comment period. While CEQA does not require the recently completed Addendum to be circulated for public review and comment, Staff sent the document to all previous commenters on the EIR, affected property owners, and groups and organizations that have expressed an interest in the future development of the Brush Street Triangle area. If the Council tentatively certifies the EIR, Staff will return with the required CEQA Resolution for formal adoption. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council tentatively certify the EIR and direct Staff to prepare a Mitigation Monitoring Program and Resolution formally certifying the document for Council's consideration at its next meeting. 14 June 04 Subject: ~'rom: Recommendations to City of'Ukiah and MendoCino County Planning Departments regarding Specific Planning of the Brush Street Triangle. Paths, Open 'Space and Creeks Commission General Comments: The area known as the Brush Street Triangle is the largest tract of undeveloped land remaining within the urbanized.core of Ukiah. The .tract emends north of Orr Creek and is bounded by the rail tracks on the west, Highway 101 on the east, and Ford Road on the north. An oppommity now ex/sts to plan an integrated commtmily for the Brush Street Triangle that benefits everyone -industry, bus/ness, neighborhood, city, and county alike. When developed, this area will have a huge impact, either positive or negative, on the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley. Forward thinking, thoughtful planning, and responsible development of this key area is essential. Planning Issues: 1. Although the Brash Street Triangle is withha the.jurisdiction of the County of Mendocmo, the proposed bridge across Orr Creek (on north Orchard) is in the City of Ukiah. Development of this coun .ty land is thus dependent on access through City jurisdiction, via Brash Street and Orchard Avenue, 2. Apparently this area is dependent on drinking water and waste water treatment services supplied by the City of Ukiah. Since the City facilities are already challenged in. this regard, what is the nature of the relationship between the City and County? What other city services (police, fire control, solid waste) would be used? 3. How will it address the provisions outlined m the Ukiah V alley Area Plan and the social, ecxmomic, and environmentalneeds of the greater How does the development of this area reflect. the open SPace and recreational elements of the Ukiah General Plan and the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Exter~sion EIR of 2002? What provisions will be made to provide transportati0nl recreation, and open space in the existing Clara/Ford Street neighborhood or in of the land developed north of Orr Creek? Afachment# ~-/ , AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9t~ DATE: December 15, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION FEE FOR THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK BACKGROUND Imposing capital improvement fees on new development is subject to requirements contained in the Ukiah City CodeI and State law, primarily the "Mitigation Fee Act.''2 Under the Mitigation Fee Act, the City may impose capital improvement fees on parcels to pay for public improvements, the need for which is created by development on those parcels. A reasonable relationship must exist between the fee and the types of development upon which the fee will be imposed. The City must follow prescribed procedures for imposing or increasing the fee. Once the fee is established and the City begins to collect the fees, they must be deposited in separate funds dedicated to the construction of the public improvements which they were established to pay for. The City Council must review the funds annually and if they haven't been used within five years after the first fees were collected, the City must make specified findings explaining why the improvements haven't been built, why they are still needed, how the fees in the fund will be used to pay for them, and when construction is projected to begin. 1 Section 9543 2 Government Code Section 66000 and following Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Resolution 2005-__ entitled Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Establish an On-Site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee for the Airport Industrial Park. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Choose not to approve the attached Resolution and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: APPROVED: ~ N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Rick Kenney, Consultant Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Engineering Report 2. Proposed Resolution Establishing an On-Site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee for t~)e-A~,port Industrial Park Candace Horsley,'~Manager APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION FEE FOR THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 It should be noted that the imposition of such fees within the Redwood Business Park is also subject to a 1998 Settlement Agreement between the City and Redwood Business Park, which resolved a law suit filed by Redwood and some other businesses, when the City revised the fees in 1997. Those fees were imposed to pay for improvements to Hastings Road and its intersection with South State Street, the intersection of Airport Park Blvd. and Tali'nage Road and the southbound off-ramp between Talmage Road and Highway 101 (collectively, "the Improvements"). Recently, Staff presented for City Council's review and action, the Fifth Fiscal Year Report for the Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fee Account (the Account), which was established in 1998, as part of the settlement of the law suit. Under the Settlement Agreement, the City agreed not to increase capital improvement fees on certain parcels, unless the zoning for those parcels changed in such a way that increased traffic and other impacts could result. In that meeting, the City Council approved the required findings to continue to collect Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fees (AlP CIF) for the Improvements, and no increases to those fees were instituted. As stated in the Fifth Year Report, it was recommended in the revised Traffic Study contained in the 1996 "Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Redwood Business Park and the Airport Business Park", that the intersection of Airport Park Blvd and Commerce Drive should be signed as an all-way stop (4-way stop) to mitigate the impacts resulting from the existing plus project conditions. As a result of the potential impacts created by these combined impacts, it was recommended that the City monitor growth in the traffic volumes at the referenced intersection to determine the appropriate time for the installation of a traffic signal. The recommended all way stop was installed by the City of Ukiah in August 1998. Beginning in 2002, the City began to examine the impacts from a proposed rezoning of an approximate 32-acre portion of the Redwood Business Park. As part of that review, the City commissioned a Traffic Analysis Report which was prepared in September 2002. In 2004, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1051, which changed the zoning for that 32-acres from an "Industrial /Mixed Use" classification to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use." The change in zoning will allow a substantial increase in retail stores which produce more traffic than the industrial and office uses permitted under the prior land use classification. The 2002 Traffic Analysis Report, prepared for the rezoning ultimately adopted in Ordinance 1051, recommended that either a traffic signal or roundabout be installed at the intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Blvd. as a mitigation improvement needed to offset the potential traffic impacts created by the predominantly commercial retail uses anticipated as a result of that change. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION FEE FOR THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK December 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Based on the above, and on observations of the existing conditions, staff recommends the establishment of a fee to fund the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Park Blvd and Commerce Street. Hereafter, the fund will be referred to as the Airport Park and Commerce Signalization Fund. Consultant Rick Kennedy has prepared the necessary Engineering Report in support of this recommendation. That report is included as Attachment 1 to this agenda summary report. Page 5 of that report lists the necessary findings that must be satisfied as a condition of imposing capital improvement fees upon development. Following that list is a brief summary of how each of those findings are supported. Attachment 2 is the proposed Resolution for approval by the Council. cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the buildout of the other two designated areas within the AlP and of other contemplated development projects located outside of the AlP. The impact analysis performed for the environmental topical issue of Traffic and Circulation involved the assessment of impacts to off-site and on-site study locations and traffic circulation within the AlP.~ The construction of the recommended improvements identified and adopted for the mitigation of the impacted off-site locations is being funded from development fees, which are imposed on undeveloped parcels within the AlP as allowed under the Mitigation Fee Act. The fees are imposed and collected pursuant to the Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement Fee Program established by the Ukiah City Council on May 7, 1997 with the adoption of Resolution No. 97-70 and as revised by Resolution No. 2000-13 adopted on September 1, 1999. Most of the recommended improvements for the mitigation of impacts to the AlP traffic circulation are to be implemented and financed by the AlP developers. However, the implementation of the recommended ultimate improvement to the on-site street intersection of Airport Park Blvd and Commerce Drive has not been established. As recommended in the revised Traffic Study contained in the "Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Redwood Business Park and the Airport Business Park", the intersection of Airport Park Blvd and Commerce Drive should be signed as an all-way stop (4-way stop) to mitigate the impacts resulting from the existing plus project conditions. As a result of the potential impacts created by cumulative conditions, it was recommended that the City monitor growth in the traffic volumes at the referenced intersection to determine the appropriate time for the installation of a traffic signal. The recommended all way stop was installed by the City of Ukiah in August 1998. Adoption of Ordinance No. 1051 On January 7, 2004, the Ukiah City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1051 amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development for the purpose of revising the regulations for and re-designating the Industrial/Mixed Use land use designation to L(qht Manufacturin,q/Mixed Use. The land use re-designation allows land uses including commercial, professional office, light manufaEturing, and limited Iow density residential within an approximately 32-acre portion of the AlP generally located south of Commerce Drive and west of Airport Park Blvd. Attachment C, entitled "Airport Industrial Park Land Use Map" depicts the revised land use designations approved by Ordinance No. 1051. In contemplation of the proposed rezone which was implemented with the approval of Ordinance No. 1051, the City retained W-Trans to prepare a new analysis of the potential traffic impacts to six study locations consisting of one on-site and five off-site locations that could result by reason of the rezone. The analysis is presented in a report entitled "Airport Industrial Park Rezoninq Traffic Analysis", dated September 2002 (2002 Traffic Analysis Report) and attached to this Engineering Report as Attachment I. The information presented in the 2002 Traffic Analysis Report is the basis for the recommendation that an On-site Traffic Mitigation Fee be established to fund a traffic signal at the impacted on-site intersection of Airport Park Blvd and Commerce Drive. ~ As referred to in the DSEIRs and in this report, off-site locations are locations outside of the AlP while on-site locations are within the AlP. analysis is 15.66 acres. When combining this acreage figure with the undeveloped 28.9 acres of the 32 acre rezone area a total of 44.56 acres of undeveloped land results. In comparison, the total acreage of undeveloped lands within the AlP stands at 58.89 acres. As a result of the difference described above, an independent trip generation summary for the entire remaining 58.89 acres of undeveloped land within the AlP was prepared utilizing pm peak hour trip rates similar to the rates used in the 2002 Traffic Analysis Report and a development scenario wherein the undeveloped portion of the 32-acre area would develop completely as retail uses. Although Ordinance No. 1051 which established the rezoning designation for the 32-acre area allows mixed uses, it does not contain provisions limiting the percentage of any allowed use within the 32 acres. It is to be noted that all post Wal-Mart development has been commercial retail in nature except for the development on the parcel designated as Lot 7 (Savings Bank of Mendocino). For this reason, full commercial retail development should be assumed for the remaining undeveloped parcels within the 32-acre area rezoned as Light Manufacturin~7/Mixed Use for the purpose of estimating new vehicle trip generation and for assigning the proportional share of the cost to construct the planned mitigation improvements to each general land use category. The results of the independent trip generation analysis are presented in the table entitled "Trip Generation Summary for Undeveloped Parcels within the AlP," which is included as Attachment D to this Report. As indicated in the referenced table, it is estimated that 1,818 new pm peak hour vehicle trips would be generated as a result of development conforming to the general land uses shown in the table. It is to be noted that the existing development on the parcel designated as Lot 4 (North Cai Wood) has been included in the new trip generation calculations. It is believed that the current operation will be relocated and the 2.53-acre site will be subdivided and redeveloped. This site is located within the area designated as Professional Office. In comparison to the data shown in Attachment D, it was estimated in the 2002 Traffic Analysis Report that there would be 1,559 new pm peak vehicle trips generated by new project development under the Scenario 1 development condition. Proposed On-site Traffic Siqnal Mitiqation Fees As shown in Attachment F of this Report, "Estimate Summary for the On-site Traffic Signal Mitiqation Improvement," the estimated cost for an eight pole, fully actuated traffic signal for the Commerce Drive/Airport Park Blvd intersection including allowances for program administration and for inflation is $235,161, assuming the construction of the mitigation improvement would occur six years from the adoption of the recommended On-site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees. It is proposed that the On-site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee be based on the traffic generation potential of a parcel considering the parcel's highest development potential as allowed under the five general land use categories consisting of Professional Office, Commercial Retail, Industrial, Industrial Automotive Commercial, and L(qht Manufacturinq/Mixed Use regardless of how the parcel actually develops or redevelops. Attachment G to this Report entitled "On-site Traffic Siqnal Mitiqation Fee Apportionment Summary by Land Use" apportions the cost of the recommended traffic signal mitigation improvement by acre based on the traffic generation potential for each of the above mentioned general land uses. Attachment H, a table entitled "On-site Traffic Siqnal o o The relationship between the need for the mitigation and the development on which the fee is imposed has been stated in Item 3 above. Per acreage fees are proposed for the five general land use categories or zones established for the AlP pursuant to Ordinance No. 1051 which contain undeveloped parcels or parcels slated for redevelopment. The amount of the mitigation fee proposed for each designated land use is based on the proportionate share of total potential vehicle trips that may be generated as a result of development or redevelopment within the land use zones as allowed under the Land Use Ordinance. As set forth in Ordinance No. 1051, a mix of specific uses or types of development are allowed or permitted for each land use category or zone. For the Light Manufacturin.q/Mixed Use land use designation a variety of general land uses consisting of light manufacturing, Iow density residence and all the uses allowed for commercial and professional office are allowed subsequent to obtaining a Use Permit. Each of these uses generates different amounts of daily traffic and do not contribute equal amounts of vehicle trips during the peak hour periods, when the road system is impacted the greatest. The traffic signal mitigation has been recommended based on the potential that the remaining undeveloped parcels within the L(qht Manufacturin,q/Mixed Use land use designation will develop completely as retail. This would be a worst case scenario in terms of the amount of additional vehicle trips generated by the development. It is noted that the post Wal-Mart development that has occurred within the AlP has been retail in nature and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that retail development will continue where permitted, in particular, in the area rezoned as L~Tht Manufacturing/'Mixed Use. Commerce Hssl,ngs Avenue WAL- MART - Dr<;e- REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK IIII · AIRPORT · BUSINESS · 'PARK ~ . Vine- · yard · · Scale 1'- 500' _...- ATTACHMENT "A" AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK SITE MAP ATTACHMENT "C" AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK LAND USE MAP PROFE. SSIONAL OFFICE -- HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL -. RETAIL COMMERCIAL LIGHT MANUFACTURING MD(ED-USE RE'rAIL CONIMERCL~L INDUSTR/AL -- AUI'OMOTIVlE COM/~E~CIAL INOUSTF[IAL ATTACHMENT E SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT EXISTING SCENARIO 1 INTERSECTION DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 1 .South State Street/Hastings Ave 40.8 D * F Northbound Left 43.8 D 46.5 D Northbound Through/Right 43.4 D 159 F Southbound Left 114.8 F 209.8 F Southbound Through/Right 21.6 C 24.9 C Eastbound 58.1 E 80.8 F Westbound 31.4 C 161.3 F 2.Airport Park Blvd/-ralmage 24.2 C 60.2 E Northbound Left 26.2 C 28.7 C Northbound Right 29 C 76.5 E Southbound Left 23.1 C 19.5 B Southbound Through/Right 23.8 C 20.7 C Eastbound Left 49.1 D 49.9 D Eastbound Throu~lh/Right 26.3 C 79.1 E Westbound Left 34.5 C 82.3 F Westbound Through/Right 10.8 B 13.6 B 3.US 101 Southbound Off Ramp 21.9 C 46.3 E Southbound Right 14.8 B 46.3 E Westbound Left 10.3 B 12.8 B Northbound Right 21.9 C 43 E 4.US 101 Northbound Off Ramp 18 C 36.5 E Northbound Left 21.4 C 45.5 E Northbound Right 12.8 B 13.3 B 5.Commerce Dr/Airport Park Blvd 9.6 A 43.1 E Northbound Left 9.4 A 33.7 D Northbound Through/Right 9.8 A 54 F Southbound Left 9.7 A 15 C Southbound Through 9.3 A 31.3 D Southbound Right 8.9 A 36 E Eastbound Left/Through/Right 10 A 53.9 F Westbound Left/Through/Right 9.4 A 16.7 C Information taken from the Level of Service Calculations presented in the 2002 Traffic Analysis Report * Delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology DATE PRINTED:I 1/30/2004 FILE NAME:ATTACHMENT E SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ATTACHMENT G ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION FEE APPORTIONMENT SUMMARY BY LAND USE PERCENT OF TOTAL APPORTIONMENT LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL EXTERNAL OF CAPITAL ACRES PER FEE PER ACRE DESIGNATION POTENTIAL IDENTIFICATION PM PEAK IMPROVEMENT LAND USE BY LAND USE HOUR COST TRIPS Professional Office Office/Restaurant 4,11 6 $14,109.66 3.89 $3,627.16 Light Manufacturing/ Mixed Use and Retail 15,17,18,20,21,22A, 63 $148,151.43 31.07 $4,768.31 Commercial Retail 23,24,25,30A,30B Industrial Light Industrial 30C,31,32 15.5 $36,449.96 12.49 $2,918.33 Industrial Automotive Commercial Auto Dealership 33,34,35,37,38,39 15.5 $36,449.96 11.44 $3,186.18 100 Estimated cost to construct the onsite traffic signal mitigation improvement in 2010 $235,161.00 58.89 $235,161 DATE PRINTED:I 1/29/2004 FILE NAME:Attachment G Onsite Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee Apportionment Summary By Land Use ATTACHMENT "1" AitT~ort Industrial Park Rer, onin.~ Traffic Analysis for the City of Ukiah ,q. cptcmbcr 2002 Introduction and Summary Introduction This report prescnls an analysis of the potential traffic impacts for thc Airport lndt~strial Park in tile City of Ukiah with proposed zoning changes. Thc analysis in this report builds upon previous tral'l~c analysi~ presented in the report, Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic ~4nalysis dated April 17, 1997 and/tirport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic/lnalysis dated June 25, 1999. The study area is located west of U.S. 101 and botmded between Talmage Road on the north, U.S. 101 on the east, the NWP rail line on the west and Norgard Lane on the south. The analysis focused on six study intersections, U.S. 101 northbound off- ramp/Talmage Road, U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp/Talmage Road, Airport Park Bou!evardfFalmage Road, South State StreeffTalmage Road, Hastings Avenue/South State Street, and Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive. Conditions were analyzed under Existing plus Project conditions for two development scenarios. Cumulative traffic volumes from other projects or growth in the City were not evaluated as part of this report. Summary Project Trip Generation The City of Ukiah has indicated that the parcels along the west and south side of the park may be rezoned with a Mixed-Use designation that would allow or permit a mix of compatible retail commercial, professional office, and industrial land uses. The City is considering two different scenarios which would modify the zoning of these parcels. Scenario I assumes commercial zoning for the entire 32 acre area, while Scenario 2 assumes a mix of uses in the area, including 30 percent commercial uses, 35 percent office uses, 30 percent light manufacturing uses, and 5 percent residential uses. Scenario I is projected to generate a total of 15,495 daily, and Scenario 2 is projected to generate somewhat fewer daily vehicle trips at 11,751 per day. ExistinR Traffic Conditions Based on new traffic counls which were taken in April 2002, the existing Levels of Service were calculated. The northbound left turn at the intersection of Talmage Road/U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp is currently operating with an average delay of 21.4 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C while the southbound off-ramp movement at the interchange is currently operating with an average delay of 21.9 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. The intersection of Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard is currently operating with an average delay of 24.2 seconds per vehicle and a LOS C. Thc intersection of South State StreeffHastings Avenue is operating with an average delay of 40.8 seconds per vchicle and a LOS C. The all-way stop controlled Airpor~ Park Boulcvard/Co~nmcrce Drive is operating with a LOS A overall. Existin.~ plus Project Conditions Under Sccnario I with full commercial land usc, thc norti~bound left-turn at thc freeway off-ramp would bc cxpcctcd to opcratc with a LOS E which would bc considercd unacccptablc. Thc southbound off-ramp movcmcnt at thc intcrscction of Tahnagc Road/U.S. 10 i Southbound Off-Ramp would be cxpectcd to operatc with an avcragc dclay of 46.3 scconds per vchiclc and a LOS E. Thc intcrscction of Taimagc Road/Airport Park Boulcvard would bc cxpectcd to opcratc at LOS E. Thc intcrscction of South Statc StrccffHastings Avcnuc would bc cxpcctcd to opcratc with avcry high delay and a LOS F. Thc all-way stop controllcd Airport Park Boulcvard/Commcrcc Drivc would bc cxpcctcd to operatc at a LOS E ovcrall. Dtb4FT,dirport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page I City of Ukiah September ! 3, 2002 Study Parameters Study Area Thc study area includes the following intersections. 1. U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp/Talmage Road 2. U.S. 101 southbound off-rampFFalmage Road 3. Airport Park Boulevard/Falmage Road 4. South State Street/Talmage Road 5. Hastings Avenue/South State Street 6. Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive Study Period Weekday p.m. peak hour conditions were analyzed. Intersection Level of Service Methodologies Operational analyses typically focus on intersections rather than road segments since the capacity of the intersections is usually more critical than the capacity of the roadway. Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. Each of the intersections was analyzed using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of&lay in average number of seconds per vehicle. Table I contains detailed descriptions of intersection level of service criteria. Following is a summary of the HCM Level of Service methodologies for various types of intersection control. Silznalized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodol _og¥ The signalized study intersections were analyzed using the Operations Method contained in the Highwq~, Capacity Manual. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as thc basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. It should be noted that the levels of service for this study were calculated using optimized signal timing. Unsignalizcd Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodology The study intersections which arc "unsignalized,' or controlled by a stop sign on tile minor street approaches, were analyzed using tile unsignalizcd intersection capacity method from thc Highwa), Capacity Manual. This ,ncthod determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating thc level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Thc through movements on tile main street are assumed to operate at free flow and a Level of Service A. DRAFT Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinbcrger Transportation, Inc. Page 3 City of Ukiah September 13, 2002 Vehicle Trip Generation Project Description For the purposes of this sludy, the project considered was the Airport Industrial Park area bounded by 'l'aimagc Road on thc north, U.S. 101 on the east, thc NWl' rail linc on thc west and Norgard La~c o~ tile south. Several developments within the park have already opened, including WalMart, Friedman Brothers (home improvement store), a Shell gas station, a Jack-in-the-Box fast food restaurant, Food4-Less, Staples, Lay-Z-Boy furniture and the Mendocino Brewing Company facility. The Airport Industrial Park mixed use area is approximately 32 acres in size, comprised of parcels along the west side of Airport Park Boulevard and south of Commerce Drive. The City is considering two different scenarios which would modify the zoning of these parcels. Scenario I is based on an assumed commercial zoning for the entire 32-acre area, and represents the "worst case" condition in terms of traffic generation. Scenario 2 includes a mix of uses in the area, with 30 percent commercial uses, 35 percent office uses, 30 percent light manufacturing uses, and 5 percent residential uses. Two of the parcels in the central portion of the 32-acre project area have specific development proposals. A 5,000 square foot Les Schwab Tire store and the adjacent 2.25-acre Mountanos Warehouse project were assumed to be components of both Scenarios I and 2. For the purposes of this study and with consultation from City Staff, commercial uses were assumed to have 25 percent lot coverage, office uses 30 percent lot coverage, light manufacturing uses 60 percent lot coverage, and residential uses an average density of 14 units per acre. Lot coverage may also be referred to as the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Surrounding Development .P~ot._e.p!ia_[4eyeloPment on parcels surrounding the 32-a.c~e.site was also included in the traffic analysis as trips generated from these sites will also impact the study area intersections and roadways. The surrounding uses that were included in the analysis include a 75-room Hampton Inn, 32,000 square feet of retail uses, a 164- scat Applebee's, and a 17 l-seat high-turnover sit-down restaurant. Thc City of Ukiah has also indicated that 5.68 acres of automobile sales and 5.68 acres of Industrial Park uses may be assumed to occur on adjacent parcels. Scenarios I and 2 each have a substantial amount of retail development. Trip generation rates for retail uses were based on the "Shopping Center" land usc category (#820) contained within Trip Generation, 6'~ Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Shopping Center trip generation rates vary according to the size of thc retail center, and therefore vary somewhat between Scenarios I and 2. it should also be noted that since new retail development will be adjacent to existing shopping center uses, thc trip generation formulas were based on the total anticipated amount of retail in tile immediate area. Existing retail in tile immediate vicinity includes thc Food-4-Lcss, Staples, Lay-Z-Boy store, WaiMart, and Friedman Brothers. Trip Generation Summary A summary of thc overall resulting trip generation characteristics is provided in Table 2. More detailed calculations, descriptions of individual parcels, and summaries of multi-usc trip generation characteristics arc provided in spreadsheet format in Appendix A. DRA FT,4 irport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Wcinberger Transportation. Inc. Page 5 City of Llkiah September 13, 2002 peak hour trips would be internal under Scenario 1. With Scenario 2, approximately 5 percent of daily and 4 percent of peak hour trips would be internal. Trip types referred to as pass-by and diverted link refer to those that "capture" vehicles already passing by thc site on adjaccn! or nearby streets. Based on a review of thc existing traffic volumes, thc existing cotmnerciai space is alrcady attracting pass-by trips from 'l'almagc Road. It is anticipated that new commercial uses will draw pass-by or diverted link trips from U.S. 101 since the available pass-by traffic from Talmage Road has already been exhausted. Since any diverted link trips from U.S. 101 are considered new to the study area, no additional reductions to the trip generation have been made. DRAFT A ir'port Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whillock & Weinbcrgcr Transportation, inc. Page 7 City of Ukiah September 13, 2002 Table 3 Summary of Intersection Operations (Weekday,.P.,M. Peak Hour) E~i~"~ .... g~i I~"~ plus Existing plus lnlcr~;eclion Scenario I Scenario 2 -- Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS -- 1. U.S.101 NB Off-ramp/Talmage Rd Northbound Left 21.4 C 45.5 E 34.6 D Northbound Right 12.8 B 13.3 B 13,3 B 2. U.S.101 SB Off-ramp/Talmage Rd Northbound Right 21.9 C 43.0 E 40.1 E Southbound Right 14.8 B 46.3 E 28.2 D Westbound Left 10.3 B 12.8 B 12.5 B 3. Airport Park Blvd/Talmage Rd 24.2 C 60.2 E 43.4 D 4. South State St/Talmage Rd 15.5 B 17.9 B 17.6 B 5. South State St/Hastings Ave 40.8 D ** F 94.7 F 6. Airport Park Blvd/Commerce Dr 9.6 A 43.1 E 25.7 D Notes: Delay = average delay per vehicle in seconds LOS -- level of service ** = delay exceeds reasonable parameters for methodology DRA I~ Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, inc. Page 9 City of Ukiah Septcmbcr 13, 2002 Intersection #3 - Airport Park Boulcvard/Falmage Road · A second westbound left-turn lane may be required to address excessive queuing for thc left-mm movement. lnters¢ction #5 - South Statc StrectJitastings Avenu..c · The westbound approach should be widened to accommodate a combined through-right turn lane and a separate left mm lane. · The two northbound through lanes on South State Street should be extended through the intersection with Hastings Avenue. · The eastbound approach should be restriped to include a left mm lane, and signal timing modified to accommodate the increased traffic volumes on the westbound approach. Intersection #6 - Aiport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive · No mitigation is required. DRAFT Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page ! 1 City of Ukiah September 13, 2002 Study Participants And References Study Participants Project Manager: Report Review: Graphics: Traffic Counts: Steve Weinbcrger, P.E., P.T.O.E. l)alenc J. Whitlock, P.E., I'.T.O.E. Debbie Dunn Noah Garcia References Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Traffic Manual, California Department of Transportation Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001 Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation Left-Turn Channelization Design Guide, Transportation Research Board Trip Generation, 6th F_,clition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997 A irport/Redwood Business Park EIR, Leonard Charles & Associates. Airport/Redwood Business Park Traffic Analysis, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., April 17, 1997 DIM FT Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinbergcr Transportation, Inc. Page 12 City of Ukiah September 13, 2002 ~o __ __ · .~ ~ . o~ .4 - .~ ~§§X. . _ .. -- ~o~oo~o~oo~ ~oo~o~oo1~ 0~000~000000 ~o~o~o ..... 0~000000000000 0 o o o ~ 0 . ~o~oooo~oooooo 0 ~ 0 ~000000 o §~ooo§~o 0 0000000~00~0 ~ 0 ~ 0 O~ O0 · . 0 ~ · . . ~0000000~0~0000 0 0 ,A 0 o~ oo , ooo ~0 ~o~ __ 2§§° ~ . . ~0 ~0 ~o __ §o§~oooo..o , ~oo~o~o~o~ _ .. . . o .... -- ..  o ~ ~o~ ~oo~ . . . . . o O~ oo00oo~o ~§~oo~o~ · . oooooo§~OOOo . . 0 . , '~ ~ ~o -- . g ~o§oooooo · 0 O0 ~ . . -- .. . . . ,,.,~ o -,z' o o o 0 ~oo oOg ~ o -- ~ · ~ ~ . . __ o ~ o~ o o ~ o~ o ~ o o o~ ~o~ ~o~o ooo  ! . . . o · - ...i · - ~ ,,~ · . ,o 0..4 · ..-~ · .-, --- ,~ mi - · __ ,f. o = g ,,, o o ,,, o ,,, .. o ..oo - o ~.~ g ....., _ .. o ~ ,,e .,,., ,,.., o ,,o°:,°-°~g°,-°,..o°g., A .-. '" .4 ,:; '"" ~.~ - ,,~ - -- ~-.- e... . 0--. ~ .., o ,..., ,,-. ~ · ..., .-,i . U ATTACHMENT J DISCOUNT TABLE YEAR QUARTER DISCOUNT FACTOR FULL QUARTERS REMAINING 2004 4 1.1713 23 2005 1 1.1633 22 2 1.1553 21 3 1.1474 20 4 1.1396 19 2006 1 1.1318 18 2 1.1240 17 3 1.1163 16 ,,, 4 1.1087 15 2007 1 1.1011 14 2 1.0935 13 3 1.0860 12 ,., 4 1.0786 11 2008 1 1.0712 10 2 1.0638 9 3 1.0566 8 4 1.0493 7 2009 1 1.0421 6 2 1.0350 5 3 1.0279 4 4 1.0208 3 2010 1 1.0138 2 2 1.0069 1 3 1.0000 0 Quarter 1 = January 1 through March 31 Quarter 2 = April 1 through June 30 Quarter 3 = July 1 through September 30 Quarter 4 = October 1 through December 31 Annual interest is 2.76% Discount Factor = (1 + (annual interest/4))"n where n = number of full quarters remaining Example: Future value of the fee for a parcel is X dollars calculated by multiplying the fee per acre by the number of acres contained in the parcel. The present value of the fee is x dollars divided by the discount factor for the full quarters remaining. If payment was made on April 15, 2007 (2nd quarter), the discount factor is 1.0935 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING AN ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MITIGATION FEE FOR THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, on January 7, 2004, the Ukiah City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1051 amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development for the purpose of revising the regulations for and re-designating the Industrial/Mixed Use land use designation to Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use and said re-designation permits land uses including commercial, professional office, light manufacturing, and limited Iow density residential within an approximately 32-acre portion of the Airport Industrial Park located south of Commerce Drive and west of Airport Park Bird; and WHEREAS, a traffic engineering report prepared by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc. and entitled "Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis", dated September 2002, identified a potential traffic impact to the onsite intersection of Commerce Drive and Airport Park Blvd. as a result of the proposed land use changes within the area rezoned as Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use pursuant to said Ordinance No 1051; and WHEREAS, a report entitled "Engineering Report for the Establishment of an On-site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee for the Airport Industrial Park" (Engineering Report) has been prepared and presented to the Ukiah City Council and made available to the public for inspection at the Civic Center Administration Offices during regular business hours ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Report identifies a need and purpose for a traffic signal mitigation fee, identifies the use to which the fee is to be put, presents how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the development on which the fee is imposed, and presents how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the mitigation and the development on which the fee is to be imposed; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Public Hearing on the establishment of an On-site Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee for the Airport Industrial Park was provided to those requesting advance notice pursuant to Section 66016 of the State of California Government Code not less than 14 days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 9543b. ITEM NO. tOa DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR THE AQCUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES AND PROJECTS FOR PATHS, OPEN SPACE, AND CREEKS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH At the request of Councilmember Baldwin, staff is providing this report on potential funding sources for the acquisition and development of properties and projects identified by the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission (POSC). The Commission has briefly discussed this item as well and has been provided specific material regarding open space easements and trusts. While there may be a number of small local funding sources not identified in this report and new sources may come available from time to time, staff has identified two primary sources for funding. These include California State grants and private foundation funding including participation in land trusts and conservation easements. Additionally, the City Council has previously designated in the budget $185,000 in the Special Projects Reserve Fund for open space acquisition. As no properties have been recommended for acquisition, these funds remain in reserve. Discussed below are details for each of these resources and how they may be utilized by the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion provide direction to staff regarding participation and time commitment in pursuit of funding sources. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. POSC members Councilmember Baldwin ' Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager State Parks Grant Information Conservation Easement and Open Space Strategy Handout APPROVED: Candac~ Horsley, C~~,y Manager LD/ZIP2 Poscfunding.Asr California State Parks and Fish and Game Grants There are two categories of State grants, which are available at this time which could be used for POSC activities. These include the Land and Water Conservation Fund through the State Department of Parks and Public Access Fund through fish and Game. Both of these programs are funded through Proposition 40 and offer limited funding to local agencies through competitive grant applications. Each of these grants does require a local funding match up to as much as 50%. A description of each program is provided in Attachment #1. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a program of the State Parks Department. Eligible projects include development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities including trails and natural areas and acquisition of property for parklands. Grants under this program are competitive and require a 50% match of local funds. The Public Access Fund is a program of the Department of Fish and Game. It offers grants mostly focused on creating access to rivers, lakes, and creeks for the purpose of recreation. Typical projects funded under this program include providing boat ramps, piers, docks, stream improvements, and educational facilities. Trails along major waterways are also an eligible project. Staff was to obtain information regarding funding limits, however, trails projects do not require a local match and can be funded at 100%. Conservation Easements and Land Trusts Conservation easements are a mechanism which allows a landowner to insure that all or portions of a piece of property will remain "open space" for a specified time or in perpetuity. Essentially, in order to establish an open space easement, a landowner voluntarily conveys through various instruments such deeds, wills, or covenants, the right to develop a parcel to a local or state agency or a non-profit organization. The property owner retains the actual ownership of the land. Such easements are acquired by purchase, exchange, donation, or exaction. It is important to note that while this mechanism may be used to restrict development and secure open space, title and all other rights and obligations remain with the landowner and does not guarantee public access for trails or recreation. Land trusts have also become common mechanisms for communities to insure the preservation of open space and the development of public parklands. Land trusts offer several mechanisms for the acquisition of land including providing private funding for real property purchase or securing donations of land to the trust. There are several communities throughout California who have operating land trust including Mendocino County. Staff has provided in Attachment #2 a condensed narrative, originally provided by the law firm of Richards, Watson, and Gershon, which describes these mechanisms in detail. This handout has also been provided to the POSC Commission. No action is being requested at this time as staff is presenting this item for Council discussion and direction. Land and Water Conservation Fund Page 1 of 2 Attachment [, , , , _ C:difomia Home Wednesday, Dec : ....................... __ :: :: ....:- : :: : ;- : : : _::: ........ _ ....................... ,nnmm :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::~ .- ..~:::::;:::::::::;.:.:::.;.;.:.:.:.:.:..:..;~~~:~;::;:::~, .. ~ ~. ,. ~. ..... ~:~:~:::~::::::;::~::~::~. ..-:*~ .......... ~' ~ ~ .......- ....... - ~ ~'?::~?::~?:: :' ..... ~¢:~::~¢:~F .-. '" .':~. ...... ~ .... - ...... .' ". '"' :::::: ..:::::5 :::::;:::::5' .' ' '"'-:-:';':'; :':.:':':':-:-:-.' ~ ~:. ..: :M ~ ~?: x~ ~" .' :'~' -::E::':' · State Parks Home Find A Park Reservations 8, Fees Adventures in Learning About Us Jobs Press I Announcements Publications State Parks Store Contact Us Site Index Related Links Grants and Local Services Procedure to deposit advances for funding acquisition directly into escrow What's New Important Dates (PDF) Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) Document Library Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants and Local Services Land and Water Conservation Fund Procedure Guide: PDF DOC I WORD DOC · This guide supersedes all previous guides.e Copies of the procedural guide may also be obtained by calling (916) 653-7423. Open Project Selection Process: PDF DOC I WORD DOC All Funded Projects (10-21-2004 I PDF Format I 33 pages) PROGRAM OVERVIEW: This year celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program. The program provides funds to federal agencies, and to the 50 states and 6 territories. The money allocated to the states may be used for statewide planning, and for acquiring and developing outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The program, which is administered nationally by the National Park Service was established in September 1964, initially authorized for a 25-year period, and has been extended for another 25 years, to January 2015. Under the provisions of the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan Act of 1967, the expenditure of funds allocated to California is administered by the State Liaison Officer, who is the Director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation. Funds for the program are derived from federal recreation fees, sales of federal surplus real property, the federal motorboat fuels tax and the Outer Continental Shelf mineral receipts. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS: Acquisition or development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Priority development projects include trails, campgrounds, picnic areas, natural areas and cultural areas for recreational use. Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public outdoor recreation use. APPLICATION DEADLINE: (Subject to Federal appropriation) May 2, 2005, for local agencies August 1, for state agencies ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: Cities, counties and districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate and maintain park and recreation areas. State agencies as definded under the program. MATCH REQUIREMENT: 50% grant - 50% match requirement. This is a reimbursement program. The applicant is expected to finance the entire project. Fifty percent of the project will California State Office of Grant Services PO Box 94289 Sacramento, C TEL 916-653-7 FAX 916-653-6 Iocalservices@ Staff Contacts Many of our do Adobe Portable Format (PDF) fi the Adobe Rea software that le print these files Revisi 10121 ~2004 Land and Water Conservation Fund Page 2 of 2 be funded by the grant, less surcharge for administration. METHOD OF ALLOCATION: For local agencies, funds are provided through a competitive selection process. Applications that are technically complete will have the best chance to receive funding. Grants for local agencies are divided: 60% for southern Califomia and 40% for norl~ern Califomia. State agency allocations are distributed under the established program formula. Additional Program Information: If your agency has been selected for the current FY 04 funding cycle, you are required to submit the following items prior funding approval. 1. For acquisition projects, grant applicants, at its own expense, are required to have an appraisal prepared conforming to Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal land Acquisitions. The appraisal must be reviewed by an independent review appraiser who must certify that the appraisal meets UASFLA standards. Both the appraisal and the review of the appraisal must be submitted to the Department. These standards may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/land- ack 2. For development projects, provide a copy of the project property deeds, titles, leases, easements or other appropriate documents to satisfy site control and land tenure. 3. Comply with 36 CFR 800, Executive Order 11593 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The process is outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding in Appendix F in the procedural guide Section 106 Instructions: PDFDOC I WORDDOC Comments received during the public comment period. PDF DOC t WORD DOC Back to Top of Page California Department of Parks & Recreation Customer Care and Privacy Policy Email Webmaster This website works best when viewed with current versions of Internet Explorer and Netscape . © 2004 State of California. Conditions of Use Pdvacy Policy WCB Public Access Program Page 1 of 2 Public Access Program (" My CA 1~' Search DFG Cooperative Projects with Local Agencies for Public Access The Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) carries out a program which includes the development of facilities in cooperation with local agencies for public access to hunting, fishing or other wildlife-oriented recreation. Financial assistance is available to cities, counties and public districts or corporation for development such as fishing piers or floats, access roads, boat launching ramps, trails, boardwalks, interpretive facilities and lake or stream improvements. Support facilities such as restrooms and parking areas are also eligible for funding under this program. Except for piers which require 50 percent matching local funds, the WCB may fund 100 percent of the qualifying project development costs. A portion of the State's income from horse-racing parimutuels, the Wildlife Restoration Fund, provides the basic revenues to sustain this program, augmented to some extent by Federal Sport Fish Restoration Act Funds. The WCB also shares in other state and federal funds sources from time to time as authorized for specific purposes or programs. Under the Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947, it is required that the State have a proprietary interest in the land or water on which the improvements are made. Prior to approval of a project by the WCB, a lease agreement is entered into between the local agency and the State. The term of the lease is generally 25 years. All operation and maintenance responsibilities for such projects must be assumed by the local agency, and these provisions are often combined with the lease in a single cooperative agreement. http://www.wcb.ca.gov/Pages/public_access_program.htm 12/8/04 WCB Public Access Program Page 2 of 2 Engineering, costs estimates and contract administration are the responsibility of the local agency. Project construction and payment to the local agency for project costs is carded out by Standard Agreement between the local and the State. The WCB also acquires lands for preservation of wildlife habitat and occasionally provides funding for the Department of Fish and Game installations and equipment. Such projects are normally administered and managed by the Department, but may include local management where special conditions exist. The WCB normally meets every three months for the purpose of considering proposals for acquisition or development as presented by staff. Meetings are open to the public and public notice is given of each meeting. Testimony about proposed projects is received and considered by the Board. For more information on the Wildlife Conservation Board http://www.wcb.ca.gov/Pages/public_access_program.htm 12/8/04 Attachment # ?,~,, CITY OF UKIAH Open Space, Paths and Creeks Commission Conservation Easements, Open Space Strategies and Land Trusts Background Information February 2004 Conservation Easements What is a Conservation Easement? A conservation easement provides permanent protection for land in an undeveloped state. The purpose of a conservation easement is to prevent activities from occurring on the property that would impair the land's scenic, ecological, and other natural resource or recreational values. An easement does not change property ownership. Both public and private lands can be protected by conservation easements. Each easement is designed with the specific landowner and property in mind. A conservation easement typically allows for forestry and agricultural uses, wildlife habitat protection and enhancement, maintenance of scenic views, and watershed protection. It may provide for public access and recreational or educational uses if the landowner so desires. An easement is a legal agreement between the property owner and a conservation organization, a municipality, or the state. The document is recorded and is permanently binding on future owners. The easements are either donated by the landowner or purchased by the conservation organization, municipality, or the state. How much do Conservation Easements cost? Conservation easements may be expensive. For example, the typical value of an agricultural conservation easement will be the land's fair market value less its agricultural value. Public or private grants can help, but funders may expect local sources to cover at least 5 to 25 percent of the cost. Land Trusts or conservancies hold most easements. Table of Contents Protecting Open Space: Conservation Easements and Other Open Space Strategies .......................... 2 Appendices A~ B. C. D. Bibliography ........................................................ Open Space Conservation Easement (City of Agoura Hills) .................. B-1 Agricultural Conservation Easement (Department of Conservation) ......... Farmland Mitigation Ordinance (City of Davis) "Protect/n~ ,Oper) Space: Conservation Easement~ and Other ~en Space Strate_~ies" and wildlife habitat.4 In California, the agricultural landscape is an integral part of our social and environmental psyche as a people, a culture, and a way of life. The importance of open space in California is recognized in the state Constitution (Art. XIII: Section 8), state statutes (Civil Code section 815; Government Code sections 6951, 51071, 51220, and 65561; Public Resources Code section 10201), and the courts (Gisler v. Co..ur. nty of Madera (1974) 38 Cal. App.3d 303,307). However, quantitative reports underscore the increasing loss of California's open spaces. In I997, the American Farmland Trust reported that California contains two of the top twenty most threatened agricultural regions in the nation, the Central Valley and the central coastal valleys.5 In 2001, the Department of Conservation reported that farmland conversion in California from 1996-1998 increased by 25 percent over the previous two year reporting period, and ranked three of California' s top agriculture-producing counties in its list of the ten most rapidly urbanizing counties in the state.6 In fact, nearly 43,000 acres of agricultural land- an area about the size of the city of Modesto- was urbanized ia California between 1996 and 1998.? Clearly, California's disappearing open space and agricultural lands are more endangered than they were just a decade ago. Given this data, local governments in California are reassessing their open space and agricultural protection strategies. This report reviews preservation policies and models for preserving open space and agricultural lands in California- including a brief description of how each works, the major benefits and drawbacks, and citations to relevant statutes and cases - to assist local governments in successfully protecting open space lands in their jurisdictions. 2. CONSERVATION EASEME~S Conservation easements can be a very successful method of preserving open space. Because land is a fully marketable commodity, landowners may separate fights to the land and conveythem to different buyers in the marketplace,s A conservation easement is defined bythe Civil Code as "any limitation in a deed, will, or other insmanent in the form of an easement, restriction, covenant, or condition, which is or has been executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land 4 NeLson, A.rfiaur C., _/:~'eservmg PrT/me Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons From Oregon, in Journal oft. he American Plaxmiag Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, at 467 (1992). ~ American Farmland Trust, Farming on the Edge (1997). ~ California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Farmland Conversion Report, 1996-1998 (2000). -.. ? "Department of Conservation Grant Helps Protect 180 Acres of Salinas Valley Farmland," California Department of Conservation press release, May 16, 2001. s Wright, John B., Conservation Easements: An Analysis of Donated Development Rights, ia JOurnal of the American PIa.nniag Association, Vol. 59, No. 4, at 487 (1993). CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & Gershon Page 3 678737.2 '7 "l~-otectin~; Op ,e~,,, S, pace: Conservation Easements ~nd Other Op¢~ Spa,~,e, ,Strategies". be accepted by the state; any city, county, or district authorized to acquire and hold title to real properS, or any non-profit organization which has as its primary purpose the "preservation, protection, or enhancement of land in its natural, scenic, histofi~ am4eultural, fo_~sted, or open- space condition or use.'''~ (Civ. Code § 815.3(a).) Furtlaermore;tlie Civil:Code an6w;S local entities which hold SUch cOnservation easements to prohibifo-r"?~'u[~]'~"~i:-threatened injury to or impairment Offi Conservationeasement or actual or threatened-violatiOn ~fits terms," by injunctive relief, and allows for recovery of money damages, incluclkig restorafion'~,osts, damages for any loss of scenic, aesthetic, or environmental valUeto the property, and litigatibn-Costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. (Civ. Code § 815.7.)' While the Civil Code does not identify funding for the acquisition of conservation easements, land acquisition funding is available by application through various state agencies such as the Resources Agency. Government Code sections 51070 et seq. allow cities and counties which have adopted an open space element in conformance with Government Code section 65560 to "accept... a grant of an open-space easement on privately owned lands lying within the county or city."ln (Gov't. Code §§ 51078(e), 51080.) Unlike the Civil Code. sectio~ 51070_et sea. allow the easement to be either in perpetuity or for a term of not less than ten years, renev~able annually. In this way, the statute provaaes differenUa2 assessment provisions for open space lands. ~ However, Government Code section 51050 specifically empowers, local jurisdictions with the authority to acquire open space easements in perpetuity which are in conformance with the entity's general plan. The statute allows cities to seek injunction against any activity which would violate the easement and grants a mandatory injunction to remove structures erected in violation of the easement.'6 (Gov't. Code § 51086(a).) The Government Code also provides for litigation costs, including attorney's fees. However, unlike the Civil Code, the Government Code allows abandonment of open space easements created pursuant to its provisions. (Gov't. Code § 51093.) Public Resources Code sections 10200 et seq. specifically governs Permanent agricultural conservation easements. Known as the Farmland Conservancy Program Act of 1995, u Cities and counties are authorized to acquire real property outright for the purposes of open space preservation under Government Code sections 6950 et seq., and are eligible for funding to maintain such property to protect against fire and flood hazards under Government Code sections 50575 et seq. "Government Code sections 65560 et seq. require every city and county to "prepare, adopt and submit to the Secrezary of the Resources Agency a local open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction." (Gov't Code § 65563.) Section 65560 provides that the open space element of the general plan is the entity's open space pla~ ~ The wilIiamson Act, Government Co&sections 51200 et seq., provides similar provisions for the temporary restriction of development on agricultural lands. The Williamson Act provisions, and the temporary restriction provisions of Government Code sections 51070 et seq., are descn'bed m detail later in this paper. ~6 In the event the city does not initiate proceedings to enjoin a violation of the easement, Government Code section 51086(a) provides that any resident of the jurisdiction may seek such an injunction. CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & Gcrshon Page 5 ' - 678737.2 "Protecd_n~ Open Space: Conservation Easements and Other Open Space S~'ategies" Given these drawbacks, the granting of conservation easements as an exaction is becoming more popular. For instance, at Palo Comado Ranch in the City of Agoura Hills, the developer dedicated a conservation easement to 63 acres of a significant piece of open space at the gateway of the Santa Monica Mountains in exchange for cluster zoning for a limited number of planned residences. From the city's point of view, such a dedication or gift is better than purchase, since it does not cost the entity money. Thus, it gives the city the benefits of ownership with few, if any, of the liabilities. From the developers point of view, ifa "gift" is made before the processing of the entitlements starts (preferably in a prior tax year), a tax deduction may be available. Furthermore, the developer can use the enticement of protected open space as a marketing tool for adjacent development, increasing the value of the homes built. -- 3. TRANS~R OF DEVELOPlVlENT RIGHTS In a transfer of development fights (TDR) program, the development rights of property are sold and bought within the private sector, within guidelines set by the local jurisdiction.~ The development rights to a parcel are severed fi.om the lot designated for protection (sending or donor site) and transferred to a parcel in an area where development is permitted (receiving site). The local jurisdiction delineates open space or agricultural lands targeted for preservation as sending sites, and also identifies those areas within the jurisdiction designated for in-fill or smart growth development. The owners of designated sending site properties have three choices: develop their property in conformance with apphcable zoning restrictions; deed-restrict their properties against future development by conservation easement; or sell the development rights on the real estate market.~s To induce participation in a TDR program, jurisdictions may down-zone the sending sites to open space or large-lot agricultural zoning, but increase the density of zoning for the development fights of the property for use on other lands.~ In this way, a landowner choosing to develop his property would be allowed very little development, whereas a landowner choosing to sell the development rights of his property would be allowed higher density deVelopment elsewhere? TDR,s allow the governingjurisdicfion to guide development ~n.d pres, o's' ~ ~hre3tev.~4 open space and agricultural lands while avoiding the costs associated with acquisiuon of land or purchase of conservation easements. However, TDRs programs have many drawbacks. While TDR ~9 Banach, Melissa and Canavan, Denis, Montgomery County, Maryland: A Transfer of Development Rights Success Story, ia Plowing the Urban Frmee: An Assessment of Alternative....Approaches to Farmland Preservation, Hiemst~ Hal and Bushwick, Nancy, eds., at 118 (1989). ~ Pruetz, Prick, Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights, at 3 (1997). Id. CACE Program 2002 Page"/ ©2002 Richard, Wagon & Gershon 678737.2 448 "Protectig,,~ Open Space: Conservation gasements ~-d O~er Open Space Strategies' In California, these ordinances have been upheld against inverse condemnation challenges,aa While both the Civil Code (section 815.30>)) and the Public Resources Code (section 10243) prohibit local governmental entities from conditioning the issuance ofan entitlement for use on the granting of a conservation easement, the courts have pointed out that such provisions do not divest local governments of their authority to exact such easements under other statutes, such as the Subdivision Map Act. However, such ordinances must be carefully drafted to meet constitutional nexus requirements. 5. DIFFERENTIAL TAX ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS In California, differential assessment programs provide tax relief in exchange for requiring continued use of land for open space or agricultural purposes.25 The underlying goal of tax relief programs is to counteract the rising property value of open space and agricultural land for urban development by providing the Iandowner with a discounted property tax assessment, allowing the landowner to afford to keep the land undeveloped in the face of speculative development land values. The Land Conservation (WilIiamson) Act, Government Code sections 51200 et seq., governs differential assessment of agricultural lands in California, while Government Code section 51070 provides similar provisions for differential assessment of open space lands.26 Passed in response to the rapid loss of farmland during the post-World War II era, the Williamson Act uses restrictive ag['.eements to provide preferential assessment to farmers who in return agree to impose minimum ten-year development restrictions on their lands.27 ~rhei1 the Act was passed, its radical approach to assessment appeared to be unconstitutional, since until that time agricultural land in the state was required to be assessed according to its "potential development value.''2s In 1966, however, ~ See San Mateo County Coastal Landowner's Association v. County of San Marco, 38 Cal.App.4th 523 (1995) (holding that enactment of coastal plan requiring the dedication of art agricultuxal conservation easement as a condition of approval to develop land for non-agricultural purrmses did not violate dueprocess or amount to a taking of private property without ju.st compensation). ~ .... 2~ At. ash, Farhad, Urban Growth and Farrnland Preservation: An Assessment of Alternative Programs, in Sustaimne Agriculture Near Cities, Lockeretz, ed., at 200 (1987). 2~ Another statewide restrictive agreement program has been in place in Wisconsin since 1977. Under Wisconsin's Farmland Preservation Prog3'am, property tax rehef is provided to farmers in exchange for restrictions that keep their la~d irt agricultural use for a specified period of time. Unlike_ California's Williamson Act, however, the Wisconsin statute provides tax relief in the form of income tax credits, which are allocated through a state forrm~N that weighs household income against property tax burden, shifting the public costs of the program from the local to the state level. See Emelock, Sharon L., Wisconsin: Managing Growth and Limiting Taxes, in .Plowin~ the Urban ..... Fringe, tupra, at 10-12. 2' htlp:l/www, consrv.ca.gov/d/rp/LCAAnfo.htm _ History> See Dorich v. Johnson (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 487, 493. CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & Gershon Page 9 .... 678737.2 / 3 "Prote, ,cting Open Space: Conservation Easements and Other Open Space Strategies" value of the property and reimburse the local jurisdiction for back taxes discounted under the contract. (Gov't. Code § 51283('o).) Government Code section 51093('0) requires the landowner to pay a penalty fee equal to 50 percent of the "abandonment value" of the property, which is calc. ulated as one quarter of the full cash value of the land if it were not subject to a use restriction. If cancellation Or 'abandonment is approved, the land can be immediately developed with urban uses. Because the cancellation provisions of these statutes can undermine their open space and agricultural preservation goals, their use has been the subject of legal baffles. In Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, the California Supreme Court rejected cancellation of a Wiiliamson Act contract on a hillside, oak woodland, grazing property that had been processed to facilitate approval of a residential development project on the site. The Court emphasized the limited scope o fthis term___ination method, holding that the cancellation provisions were intended only for"extraordinary simons in which the ordinary nonrenewal and expiration procedures would pose instarnountable obstacles to the accomplishment of pressing public needs." (Sierra Club, supra, 28 -Cal.3d at 855; see also Honey Sprin~ Homeowner's Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122.) Nevertheless, manyjurisdictions continue to use this termination method to avoid 'the continuing development restrictions inherent in the nonrenewal process. When Stanislaus County cancelled a Williamson Act contract on 5,000 acres of grazing land in conjunction with the approval of an extensive residential and commercial development, the Department of Conservation sued the county assessor for calculating the landowner's cancellation fee on the basis of the property's value for agriculuaal use. ('People ex rel. Department of Conservation v. Triplett (1996) 48 CaI.App.4th 233.) After the appellate court remanded the case, the parties settled, resulting in the dedication of 3,500 acres of grazing land in an agricultural conservation easement to the state. This settlement agreement subsequentlybecame the model for a new Williamson Act provision passed by the Legislature in 1997. (Gov't. Code § 51256.) The provision authorizes cancellation of Williamson Act contracts in return for the dedication of agricultural conservation easements either elsewhere on the property or within the same governmental jurisdiction, the value of which must be equal to or greater than the cancellation fee otherwise to be imposed on the landowner. In essence, this provision is a transfer of development rights program within the Wilhamson Act, using the statutory framework of Public Resources Code sections 10200 et seq. This is the sole provision of the Wilhamson Act to guarantee the permanent preservation of agricultural land. Despite amending leg/slation intended to strengthen the Wilhamson Act's ability to ensure the preservation of agricultural lands in the state, there remain serious drawbacks, particularly fiscal ones, to Cahfomia's differential assessment programs. Since the local governmental agency is the one providing the tax break to participants in either of the programs, that agency absorbs any resulting loss in property tax revenues. This potential to lose tax revenues was initially a substantial disincentive for local governments, particularly counties, to participate in the Williamson Act program. In order to offset this hesitancy, the state instituted a subvention payment program in CACE Program 2002 Page ©2002 R/chards, Watson & G-ershon 678737.2 453 "Protectin~ Open Space: Coaservation Easements and Other Open Space Swatches" which the local jurisdiction is reimbursed a portion of the property tax revenue lost due to enforce~hl'~ ~_~_'*,~ nHme a~icultural lands and open space lands of statewide importance. LGov't~_Cocte .~ ] b 14u et sea..':"'Jnder the subvention program, the Department of Conservation ~ertmes sut~ventmn appttcanons ti'om participating local governments and forwards a report to the State Controller, who distributes payments to cities and counties from a sum appropriated each fiscal year in the state budget,ss While these subvention payments are a substantial expenditure for the state, the payment makes up only a partial reimbursement of local tax revenues lost through differential assessment, particularly if a jurisdiction enrolls high-risk, urban fa'inge farmland in the program,s~ Furthermore, enrollment in a differential assessment contract many times does not provide a landowner with sufficient tax savings to persuade birn or her to forego the profit to be had fa, om seIling the land for development,ss Differential assessment programs still remain one of the weaker tools for protecting open space and farmland. The WilIiamson Act has historically been utilized primarily by farmers not located on the critical urban fringe, where it is most important to protect farmland. Instead, it is more popular with farmers in rural areas far from urban development; farmers unlikely to convert their lands to urban uses in the near future, anyway.36 These farmers, under no development pressure or urban fringe conflicts, nonetheless benefit considerably fro~ the tax benefits of the Williamson Act. Landowners on the urban edge, on the other hand, are hesitant to tie up their land in a conservation agreement when urban development looms close to their lands. The tax benefits of differential assessment programs are minimal to these landowners, who balance them against the value of their land for non-agricultural development. 6. RIGItT-TO-FARM LAWS An open space conservation strateg3, that is specifically aimed at preserving agriculture on the urban fringe is the so-called "fight-to-farm" law. Farmers on the urban fringe are subject to various urban "spillover" effects, ranging from mere inconvenience to litigation and restrictive ordinances. Right-to-farm laws attempt to respond to efforts byproximate urban dwellers to restrict normal farming practices, thereby supporting and encourag4mg commercial agricultural operations with the aim of retaining farmers in the agricultural business. 3~ Will, supra, at 2, m3. ~ The state has paid roughly $35 million annually in subvention payments to local jurisdictions since 1994. See Will, supra, at 2. -- a~ Council on Environmental QuaLity, Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluan'on of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open-Space, prepared by the Regional Science Reseaxch Institute, at 76 (1976). ~ Atash, supra, at 41. See also California Department of Conservation, Land in the Balance: The tYilliamson Act - Costs, Benefits and Options (Executive Summary), at 13 (1989). CACE Program 2002 Page 13 ©2002 Richards. Watson & C,e~hon 678737.2 454 "Protecti~ Open Space: Conservation ~asem~n~ and Other Opca Spac.e S~,a. te~es" never gotten involved in the legal system.42 Instead, they relied mostly on third party mediation to resolve the problem. Even more importantly, the study found that farmers did not even consider nuisance suits or municipal ordinances the most pressing problem on the urban fringe. Rather, 82 percent of the farmers surveyed felt that trespassing and vandalism was a problem for them, compared to 55 per. cent for nuisance complaints and 40 percent for restrictive municipal ordinances. In this respect, n~t-to-zarm laws clearly fail to address many of the urban fxinge pressures that influence farmers to sell their lands for development. 7. BALLOT BOX PLANNING In response to the continuing loss of open space in their communities, voters have begun to turn to the ballot to achieve their preservation objectives. Growth restriction and open space funding measures, a new development in the area of open space preservation in CaLifornia, have been enacted in several California communities. Versions of the so-called "Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources" (SOAR) initiatives, which limit growth in open space and aghcultural zones within a jurisdiction, have been passed into law in Ventura County, Napa County, and the City of Agoura Hills. These initiatives establish limit lines for urban development, and require voter approval to amend any open space or agricultural zone to zoning which would allow urban development. The California Supreme Court upheld Napa County's SOAR initiative in 1995. (DeVita v. Coun _ty of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763.) The SOAR initiatives are draiied to exempt schools, parks, or public facilities from the voter approval requirement, and remain in place for a specified period of time (both Napa and Ventura County's initiatives are valid for 30 years). In 2000, the City of Monrovia in Los Angeles County passed two innovative open space protection and acquisition funding ballot measures. One measure redesignated hUndreds of acres in the city's hillside areas as wilderness preserve, with a change in designation or development permitted only upon a vote of the people. The second measure imposed a special parcel tax to fund the acquisition of privately-held, hillside, open-space properties. Using funds from the parcel tax in conjunction with matching state and federal funding, the City had already acquired nearly 400 of the 600 acres designated for preservation by 2001. Given the relatively recent establishment of these regulations, little information is yet available on their preservation effects. However, it is interesting to note that voter initiatives rely on a traditionally criticized method of land use planning, "ballot-box zoning," in order to accomplish long-term open space preservation goals,n3 In other contexts, such voter-driven land use decisions Lisamky, supra, at 223 ~3 Fulton, William, Guide to California plarm/ng, at 198-199 (1999). CACE Program 2002 ~2002 Kichard~, Watson & Gc-r~hon Page 15 678737.2 456 /? "Protectin~ Open Space: Conservation Easements and Other Open Space Strate~e$" its strict nature makes it politically and, in some cases, legally infeasible? In order to strengthen the role and effectiveness of' zoning in preserv/ng open space and agricultural lands, alternative zoning concepts have been developed. Cluster Zonine One alternative zoning approach to protecting open space is clu~ter zoning, where limited development on property is allowed in a "cluster," preserving the remaining land for open space or agricultural uses? Design stand,ds can be applied to arrange allowable development in such a way as to maximize open space on the property, and density bonuses are provided to allow for an increase in allowable units irt exchange for a reduced development footprint on the parcel. Frequently, the portion of the parcel that is not developed is restricted by a conservation easement. Cluster zoning addresses important issues of maintaining viable mounts of wildlife habitat and movement corridors, or sufficient agricultural acreage to keep farming viable. While cluster zoning is an extremely helpful model for preserving open space and small farms, such zoning is less effective in areas of intense commercial agriculture, however, since homeowners may object to adjacent lands being used by farmers and ranchers because of the noise, dust, and odors associated with commercial agriculture,s° Even if issues of land use compatibility are addressed, the undeveloped portions of cluster parcels may still not be large enough to sustain viable farming operations. Therefore, cluster zoni_ng is more appropriate as a tectmique for preserving open space or for providing tramitional areas between farms and residential areas, as discussed below. ,4~B,-'l~+ Am'iculturai-Residential Transition Zone Another preservation technique which specifically addresses irnpomt barriers to farmland preservation is agricultural-residential transition (ART) zones. Such zones provide a buffer zone between the usually incompatible uses of suburban residential areas and commercial agricultural operations.5~ Current land use practices frequently allow form'ban development directly adjacent to full-scale agricultural lands, where farmers utilize such practices as pesticide applications, early morning work hours, and loud, malodorous farm animal husbandry. These types ~' Such zoning has been upheld by the courts, however. See Gisler v. County of Madera, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d 303 (rejecting an inverse condemnation challenge to an exclusive zorn.ag ordinance that prohibited the sale of parcels less than 18 acres in size, despite an underlying subdivision delineating parcels of 2½ acres). 49 Bowler, Chr/sti, Farmland Preservation and the Cluster Zoning Model, in Journal of the American planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, at 127 (1997). ~o Daniels, Thomas L., F/here Does Cluster Zoning Fit in Farmland Protection?, in Jouraal of the Amehcan Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, at 132 (1997). st Yacoub, Rosahe, Light Agriculture/Low Density Residential Transition Zone: A Specific Solution to the Problem of Farmland Conversion on the Urban Fringe, University of California at Santa Cruz (1992). CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & C~hon Page i7 678737.2 458 "Protecting Open Spac,e: Co.nservation Easements ax~,d Other Open Space Stx-ate~ie,s," . __ 9. COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT Many open space preservation experts have concluded that undevgloped lands are most successfully preserved through the utilization of all of these preservation tools in conjunction with a regional or state-wide growth management scheme? Such'programs provide enough preservation tools to fit different needs, and tie local and state programs to~ether in a consistent, streamlined scheme. While California does have a state-level growth management program, preservation advocates have traditionally looked to Oregon's comprehensive statewide land use act, enacted in 1973. In the recent past, major developments have occurred with respect to Oregon's program that could seriously unde _~ine the long-term success of~e program- once again providing a model for California and other states looking to slow the loss,.of open spaces. Case Study - Oregon's Farmla_nd Protection Program By the 1970's, oregon, like the rest of the nation, was experiencing a rapid decrease in farmland productivity and an increase in urban conversions. In 1973 alone, the state lost 30,000 acres of its fertile Willamette Valley farmlands to urban uses, and the trend appeared to be continuing.~7 In response, the state devised a comprehensive land preservation program in 1973 to offset these trends towards urbanization and farmland acreage loss, particularly in the agriculturally productive and urbanizing western Willamette Valley. At the time, many strategies were being attempted by local jurisdictions all over the country in an attempt to arrest the growing nationwide phenomenon of farmland and open space conversion on the urban fringe. In devising its comprehensive planning program, Oregon included a myriad of strategies intended to preserve lands on the urban edge. These strategies included exclusive agricultural zoning, urban growthboundaries, restrictions on rural residential development, tax relief, and right-to-farm laws. These strategies were implemented in much the same way previously discussed in this paper. The backbone of the oregon program, however, is its state-level land use planning statute? Under the statute, the state' s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCC) sets standards for local planning, and cities and counties are required to apply those standards through local comprehensive plans and land-use ordinances. Under this system, all counties in oregon have adopted planning and zoning measures to protect agricultural land. The program requires all counties to condUct an inventory of its agricultural land, and designate it in the comprehensive plan. The county is also required to adopt policies to preserve the agricultural land, including a ~ ~ Libby, Lawrence W., Farmland Protection Policy: An Economic Perspective, Center for Agriculture in the Environment (1997); Gale, Dennis E., Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs: A Comparative Analysis, in Journal of the American planning Association, Vol_ 58, No. 4 (1992); Nelson, supra. Nelson, supra, at 477 Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 215 (1999). Page 19 CACE Program 2002 678737.2 ~2002 l~icl'm'ds, Watson & Gcmhon P-5 November 2000 on behalf of an aggregate mining operation against a southern Oregon mty and county, alleging that the local governments denied it permission to operate. Others havre filed suit against Measure 7. In McCall v. Kitzhaber, several community activists charged that MeaSUre 7 was enacted unconstitutionally, in violation of Oregon's "single-subject" initiative requirement and failure to reproduce the full text of the amendment on the ballot? In Februm3' 2001, an Oregon lrial court deemed the initiative unconstitutional on these grounds. The initiative has been suspended by injunction until the case is decided by the Oregon Supreme Court, which heard argument in September. If Measure 7 does go into effect, it could possibly signal the end of Oregon's growth management program. Clearly, neither local jurisdictions nor the state have the funding to compensate landowners for all fluctuations in market value that land use regulations may have on their property, particularly if the measure is determined to apply, retroactively. From the initial court filings, it appears that Measure 7 opponents must rely entirely on procedural violations to invalidate the initiative. In effect, Oregon could soon be facing massive urban growth pressures and sprawl in much of the previously protected agr/culmraI areas of the ~state, particularly in the Willamette Valley. B. Comorehensive Open Space Planning in Californi-~ California requires ail cities and counties to adopt a general plan, which must include an open space element. Furthermore, Govemment'Code section 65564 requires local entities to prepare an Open Space Action Plan to implement the open space element, and Government Code section 65565 requires that all actions taken by the jurisdiction "by which open-space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or re=m~lated," be consistent with the open space plan. In this way, California's land use planning statutes require cities to specifically identify open space to preserve within its jurisdiction, and set forth a detailed implementation plan for that preservation_ A city can effectively implement the various open space preservation tools outlined above through this planning requirement. Depending on the needs ofthe community, a combination of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, mitigation requirements, cluster zoning, differential assessment, open space and in-fill property inventories, urban growth boundaries, and innovative funding mechanisms can effectively halt urban sprawl. By plarming for the acquisition and preservation of open space at the outset, and providing the tools necessary to achieve all types of open space preservation desired in the community, a city will have the resources and flexibility needed to readily achieve its open space preservation goals as the opportunity arises. The plaint/frs coraptamt, brief, and the court's ruling can be found at <http://www.lcd. state.or.us/perspect/ves/rneasure7.html>. CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & C, ershon Page 21 678737.2 462 ~ )"""- Appendix A Abrams, Kathleen Shea, California: A Multi-Level Approach of Distn'cting, Planning, Permitting, andEasementAcquisition, in Plowing the Urban Frinee: An Assessment of Alternative Approaches to Farmland Preservation, Hiemstra, Hal, and Bushwick, Nancy, eds., at 25 (1989). American Farmland Trust, Farming on the Edge (1997). Atash, F arhad, Urban Growth and Farmland Preservation: An Assessment of Alternative Programs, in Sustaining A_~Ticulture Near Citie~s, Lockeretz, ed., at 200 (1987). Banach, Melissa, and Canavan, Denis, Montgomery County, Marylan& A Transfer of Development Rig/its Success Story, in Plowin~ the Urban Frinee: An Assessment of Alternative Approaches to Farmland Preservation, Hiemstra, Hal, and Bushwick, Nancy, eds., at I 18 (1989). Bowler, Christi, Farmland Preservation and the Cluster Zoning Model, in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, at 127 (1997). California Department of Conservation,''Department of Conservation Grant Helps Protect 180 Acres of Salinas Valley Farmland," press release, May 16, 2001. Califomia Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Farmland Conversion Report, 1994-1996 (1998). California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Farmland Conversion Report, 1996-1998 (2000). California Depart__m~ ent of Conservatiorb_The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California, at 4- to 4-3 (1991). California Department of Conservation, Land in the Balance: The Williamson Act - Costs, Benefits. and Options (Executive Summary), at 13 (1989). California Department °fFinance, California Census Comparison Tables 1990-2000 (2000). City of Davis General Plan Update, Final Dra~ (1999). Coughlin, Robert E., Formulating and Evaluating Agricultural Zoning Programs, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, No. 2, at 184, 189 (1991). Daniels, Thomas L., The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land and Open Space, in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57, No. 4, at 421 (1991). CACE Program 2002 Page 2 ©2002 Richards, Watson & Gershon 678737.2 464 Appendix A Lisansky, Judith, and Clark, George, Farmer-Nonfarmer Conflicts in the Urban Fringe: Will Right- To-Farm Help?, in Sustainine Am-iculture Near Cities, Lockeretz, ed., at 219 (1987). Nelson, Arthur C.,Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons From Oregon, in Journal of the American Planaing Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, at 467 (1992). Pruetz, Rick, Saved By Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights, at 3 (1997). Risse, E.M., The American Settlement Pattern of the 21~ Century, SYNERGY/Planning, Inc. (1992) Solving Sprawl: 1999 Sierra Club Sprawl Report, Sierra Club (1999). Stapleton, Richard M., Protecting the Source: HowLand Conservation Safeguards Drinking Water, Trust for Public I_ands (1997). Will, Dale, The Land Conservation .4 ct at the 32 Year Mark: Enforcement, Reform, and Innovation, 9 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 1, 3 (1999). Wright, John B., Conservation Easements: An Analysis of Donated Development Rights, in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 59, No. 4, at 487 (1993). Yacoub, Rosalie, Light Agriculture/Low Density Residential Transition Zone: A Specific Solution to the Problem of Farmland Conversion on the Urban Fringe (1992). CACE Program 2002 Page 4 ©2002 R/chards, Watson & Gcrshon 678737.2 466 Appendix Recording Requested By: City of Agoura Hills 30101 Agoura Court, Suite 102 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 And When Recorded Mail to: City of Agoura Hills 30101 Agoufa Court, Suite 102 Agoura Hills, CA 93101 space above this line for recorders use - NO RECORDING FEE: PUBLIC ENTITY DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT THLS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") is made as of , 2000 (the "Effective Date") by and between ("Grantor") and the City of Agoura Hills, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. The Grantor is the owner of certain real property (the "Property") located in the City of Agoura Hills, County of Los Angeles, State o fCalifornia, and more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Grantor hereby voluntarily deeds and conveys to Grantee a Conservation Easement in perpetuity over the Property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions herein, and pursuant to California law, including Civil Code Section 815, et seq., Grantor hereby voluntarily deeds and conveys to Grantee a conservation easement in perpetuity over the Property, as follows: CACE Program 2002 Page 2 ©2002 Richards, Watson & Gershon 678737.2 Appeo, dix B (a) Unseasonal watering, use of dangerous herbicides, such as Triox, Malathion and Agent Orange, rodenticides, or weed abatement activities, incompatible fire protection activities and any and all other uses which may adversely affect the purposes of this Conservation Easement; Use of off-road vehicles; Grazing or surface entry for exploration or extraction of minerals; (d) Except as specifically permitted herein, the erecting of any building, billboard, radio or telephone towers or sign, with the exception of signs regarding trail use, safety issues and hours of operation; ... material; (e) Depositing ofsoiI, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, bio-solids or any other other material; (0 Excavating, dredging or removing of loam, gravel, soil, rock, sand or building of roads; (g) Otherwise altering the general topography of the Property, including (h) Removing, destroying, or cutting of trees, shrubs, non-native plants, or other vegetation, except as required by law for (1) fire breaks, (2) prevention of landslides, (3) maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, or (4) prevention of treatment of disease. 4. Grantor's Duties. Grantor shall undertake all reasonable actions to prevent the unlawful entry and trespass by persons whose activities may degrade or harm the conservation values of the Property. In addition, Grantor shall undue all necessary actions to perfect Grantee's rights under Section 2 of this Conservation Easement, including but not limited, Grantee's water ri ts. 5. Reserved Ri~mhts. Grantor reserves to itseLfi and to its personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, ail rights accruing from its ownership of the Property, including the right to engage in or to permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Property that are consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. 6. Grantee's Remedies. If Grantee determines that Grantor is in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement or that a violation is threatened; Grantee shall'give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand in writing the cure of such violation. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within fifteen (15) days after receipt of said writteu notice and demand from Grantee, or said cure reasonably requires more than fifteen (15) days to complete and Grantee fails CACE Pro.~am 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & C.,~hon 470 '-~ ~ Page 4 678737.2 Appendix B the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Grantor shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. · 6.3 Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in his Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring ~y action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or fi-om any prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate sigrtificant injury to the Property resulting from such causes. 7. Fence Installation and Maintenance. Grantor [Grantee] may/shall install and maintain a fence around the Conservation Easement area to protect the conservation values of the Property. 8. Notice of Intention to Undertake Certain Permitted Actions. Grantor shah notify Grantee and obtain approval fi'om Grantee before beginning construction of improvements to the Property that are specifically permitted pursuant to the terms of this Deed, such as hiking trails, parking, bathrooms, trash receptacles or restoration activities. [INSERT SPECItlC I.akNGUAGE tt!'~.~] 9. Access. This Conservation Easement does not convey a general right of access to the public. 10. Costs and Liabilities. Other than as specifically provided herein, Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Property. 10.1 Taxes. Grantor shall pay before delinquency all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed against the Property by competent authority (collectively "taxes"), including any taxes imposed upon, or incurred as result of, ~s Conservation Easement, and shall furnish Grantee with satisfactory evidence of payment upon request. 10.2 Hold Harmless. Grantor shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Grantee and its, directors, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, contractors, and representatives (collectively "Indemnified Parties") from and against all habilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes o faction, claims, demands, or judgements, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, arising fi'om or in any way connected with: (1) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damages to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless due to the negligence of CACE Pronoun 2002 Page 6 ©2002 Richards, Watson & C_~t~hon 678737.2 472 ~ 5--'-- Awendi× B or to such other address as either party shall designate by written notice to the other. Notice shall be deemed effective upon delivery in the ease of personal delivery or, in the case of delivery by first class mail five (5) days after deposit into the United States mail. 14 Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be mended by Grantor and Grantee by mutual written agreement. Any such amendment shall be 'consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and, except as provided in Section 14, shall not affect its perpetual durations. Any such amendment shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County, State of Califomia~ 15. General Provisions. (a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Co) Liberal Construction. Any general rule ofconsu-uction to the contrary notwithstanding, this Conservation Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of the deed to effect the purpose of this Conservation Easement and the policy and purpose Civil Code Section 815. etseq. Ifanyprovision in this insmament is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. (c) Severabilitv. Ifa court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates on its face any provision of this Conservation Easement Deed, such action shall not affect the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances. (d) Entire A_m'eement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. No alterations or variation of this insmunent shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment in accordance w/th Section 15. (e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor's title in any respect. (f) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement Deed shall be binding upon, and insure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigms and shall continue as a servitude nmning in perpetuity with the Property.- ....................... (g) Termination of Rights and Obligation.q. A party's rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement term/nate upon transfer of the partes interest in the CACE Prog,am 2002 Page 8 ©2002 R.ichard~, Watson & C,~n'shon 678737~ AppencHx B Grantor: By:. Name: Title: Dated: Grantee: City of Agoura Hills A Public Body, Corporate and Politic By: Mayor Dated: Attest: By: City Clerk Dated: Approved as to content: By: City Manager Dated: CACE Program 2002 ©2002 Richards, Watson & G~hon Page 10 678737.2 476 Appendix B State of Calilbrnia } County of } On ,20 , before me, appeared Notary Public, personally , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instalment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature State of California County of On , -~(~';. before me, . a N'otmw Public, personally appeared ' , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their author'i ~ed capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature CACE Program 2002 ©2002 R/chards, Watson & Gershon Page 12 678737.2 Creating Land Trusts: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources Page 1 of 9 Land Trust Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources ,loin Land Trust Email List! New Land Trust Sites Land Trust Jump Station Add Jump Station Link The purpose behind this site is to help preserve our land. If you have any suggestions, additions, or changes please feel free to mak~scggestions. Site Map · Paradise Lost · What to do'? · What is a Land trust? ·ttow a. Land Trus~Work~s · I:,and "lYusts lnc. reas~nga~ !..,an4 De~rease~ · Protect Wl~4t? · A I,itt!c lti/sto~;y · l~.and Trusts in Action · To01s o f the "I"rade o Lmgd PuJ'chasc o Land _Dp93ttiQns o [,ife Estates o bimjj~d I)¢vel~pmcnt o Conservation Easp~Bej~ts _ · Nctting..I. Jp Your Own I,and 'l"rust · 'l'hc Coming of"l'okyo Prime · Organizations o Ixmd Trust Alliance o 'l'hc Trust tbr Public l.and o others ... · Add ,lump Station I,ink Paradise Lost Act 1, Scene I Looking back I could not have known how lucky I was to be raised in a small Oregon toxw~. We had horses, land, beautiful green trees, big clean rivers, wheat fields, orchards, foxes, deer, good neighbors, and not too many people. All anyone could want really. As I child I also could not know what the first housing developments meant. http://www.possibility.com/LandTrust/ 2/2/2004 Creating Land Trusts: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources Page 3 of 9 Land trusts now operate in every state in the nation protecting land of local, regional, and national importance. Collectively, America's nearly 900 independent land trusts: · helped protect 2.7 million acres · own 437,000 acres · hold conservation easements on another 450,000 acres · have acquired, protected, and transfered 668,000 acres to other organizations and agencies · have used other direct methods to help protect another 1,159,000 acres Well known areas protected by land trusts include land on the Califomia coast at Big Sur; in the San Juan Islands, Washington State; at Jackson Hole, Wyoming; along the Appalachian Trail; in New York's Adirondacks; and at Acadia National Park in Maine. How a Land Trust Works Land trusts: · Purchase land · Acquire land through donations · Secure conservation easements on land and monitor the terms of these easements · Work in partnership with private and governmental conservation agencies Land trusts vary greatly in size. Over half are completely volunteer, others have only a director or one or more part-time staff members, a few have a large staff, prominent board of directors and a large membership. Annual budgets range from under $10,000 to over $1 million. 32% operate with budgets of $100,000 or more. 84% of all land trusts accept land donations. 75% accept conservation easements. In both instances donors can receive significant tax benefits based on the value of the donated land or easement. 63% of land trusts buy land for conservation. 70% of the funds for purchases come from contributions from members and individual donors in the community. Other finds come from government agencies, foundations, and corporations. Land trusts also borrow money from banks, foundations, and individuals to buy land. Loans are repaid either through fund raising, sales to conservation buyers or, in the case of advance acquisitions for local, state or federal conservation agencies, when public funds are available and the property is repurchased by the government. Although independent, land trusts frequently work with each other, with national conservation organizations, and with government agencies on important projects. Land Trusts Increasing as Land Decreases Land trusts in the US have been increasing at 23% a year or one per week. Even more are needed as we http ://www. pos s ibility, c om/LandTrust/ 2/2/2004 Creating Land Trusts: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources Page 5 of 9 Land Trusts in Action In the article How to Start Your Own Land Trust by Marinnette Mitais in the summer 1995 edition of Back Home magazine relates the following example of how a land trust can work: Here's an illustration of how our local conservancy worked with governmental and conservation agencies. Recently we were instrumental in negotiating a purchase that protects a 1,700-acre tract of land in our county, an accomplishment we lacked the means to do on our own. We first turned to the Trust for Public Land, headquartered in San Francisco. They asked for information about the land and a survey of community interest. This we provided, and then we passed the baton. The Trust for Public Land purchased the property with the intention to sell it back to a conservation organization that had funds enough to manage it. This is indeed what happened when the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission came into the picture and bought the tract. This chain of events started with a simple phone call from someone who had seen a beautiful piece of land and thought, What can I do to ensure that it is protected? This is an example of one person's ability to make a difference. Land Purchase The trust buys the land. Most land trusts don't have enough money to buy land outright. Some trusts, like Naturc Conservancy get money donations and buy lots of land. Land Donations Some people who love their land donate their land to a trust as a protection method. You may be surprised that provisions in your will may not be sufficient protection. We had a neighbor, an old logger from Denmark, who had a dream of his gorgeous tree covered land becoming a park. After is death his greedy children broke non-sale provisions in his will and where there was once a could-have-been park is now another housing development. Nobody cares about your land as nmch as you do, especially when money is involved. Save it now. Life Estates A life estate is a legal instrument through which a property owner donates land to a land trust after they die, while retaining the right to live on the property for the remainder of their life. Limited Development I.imited development is tradeoff usually lbrced by economic hardship. A landowner agrees to develop part of the land if thc rest is protected. Conservation Easements My handy dandy 8 inch thick law dictionary defines an easement as: http://www.possibilitv.coln/LandTrust/ 2/2/2004 Creating Land Trusts: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources Page 7 of 9 expand. From our other great ability, intelligence, comes technology. As technology increases new areas become easier and easier to settle. More marginal areas become attractive because we are less dependent on the local area for survival. Expansion is not wrong. Technology is not wrong. The problem is that there is no natural stopping condition constraining colonization. Technology will eventually equalize all marginal areas. The population shows no signs of reducing so new colonization will continue. At each colonization point the decision will be do we branch out or not? The answer is always yes because humans are valued over other parts of nature. Project out. In the end the earth will be one city, Tokyo Prime. The final circle will link completing the web. At that point we may do something, but it will be too late to preserve what we already have. Since we can see the future clearly it makes sense to do the something now. Is this not the rational thing to do? Some will say we have more land, more resources why limit ourselves? True for this generation. Probably the next. And the next after that. But some generation will hit the wall. Why not act now? Organizations Land Trust Alliance (LTA) What is it? LTA was formed in 1982 by four of the nation's leading land trusts to increase the effectiveness of the many diverse, independent, and geographically widespread land trusts. LTA has become the umbrella group for the land trust movement. The Alliance not only provides a broad range of services from insurance to training aimed at helping to strengthen individual land trusts, but also acts as the voice for land trusts in Washington. The Alliance focuses on public policy issues of direct interest to land trusts, playing both an educational and an advocacy role. The Alliance also publishes/:~vchc, zg~ the only professional journal for land trusts and serves as an intbrmation source about land trusts for.journalists and the public. With Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, the Alliance established in 1990 the Land Conservation Law institute to provide legal information to land trusts and attorneys. The Alliance also organizes the national land trust Rally every 18 months, now the largest land conservation conference in North America. Options for Joining · Sponsors: land trusts can join LTA as Sponsors, receiving full benefits. Dues are based on operating expenses (rain $150: max $1,500). http://www.possibility.com/LandTrust/ 2/2/2004 Creating Land Trusts: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources Page 9 of 9 American Community Gardening Association Promotes the growth of community gardening. 100 N. 20th Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-1495 (215) 988-8785 FAX (215) 988-8810 email: sallymcc@libertynet.org hr.'t?:/,/'_,:.¥~r~.n',.uni t ,.'~:~a '..,.-den. o r,:.~ ,,._". Land Trust Email List I've started a landtrust email list that currently is hosted at yahoo. Hopefully the email list will be a place where people can ask questions and get support. See ya there! 1. You can subscribe to the email list by going to h_tt~_://groups.yahoo.con~/gmt~p/landtrust/j(~in. 2. Once joined you can email in questions, comments, or announcements by emailing to landtr:ttst[fijya[!o~rot!ps.com. http://www.possibility.com/LandTrust/ 2/2/2004 Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT) Page 2 of 2 be involved in an effort that lasts forever," he said. - Elisabeth Ptak, Associate Director, MALT Marin Agricultural Land Trust Post Office Box 809 Point Reyes Station CA 94956 415-663-1158 farmland~malt.org Home Page_ 5-3 http://pointreyesvisions.com/NewFiles/Site%20Pages%20folder/Malt.html 2/2/2004 Land & People, Fall 1999, In Farms We Trust: The Trust for Public Land Page 2 of 5 The survival of these farmlands has been no accident; it was hard-won. It is one of the definitive examples of agricultural land preservation in the United States, a place anyone who is interested in the subject ought to see. Conservation of these lands has been the mission of an organization known as the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, MALT for short, supported at its inception by the Trust for Public Land. Credited with the idea that led to MALT and its guiding spirit for nearly 20 years is Ellen Straus. She is the wife of dairy farmer Bill Straus and the mother of Albert, who now runs the family place as an organic dairy; Vivien, the farm's director of marketing; Michael, an organic farming advocate; and Miriam, a farmer and mother in New York. I have history with these people. When, in my teens, my mother died suddenly, Bill and Ellen took me on as a ranch hand for a few weeks one spring. I was not the only half-broke waif to have taken up fence pliers and hay hooks there. There was, I learned later, a whole string of young men trying to figure themselves out while working on the Straus place. That's how Bill and Ellen are; their definitions of success and failure are not individual. If a boy fails alone, this line of thinking goes, his friends have failed. By the same token, if a family ranch can be thought of as a success, it must not be at the expense of the soil, the livestock, or the community. We were up at 3:00 a.m. to wade through 160 Holsteins in the chutes of the milk barn. When the sun was up, we would come back to Ellen's linoleum- floored kitchen, where she would feed us a huge breakfast, with eggs from the chicken house you could see through the window over the sink. Bill would bring a stainless steel can of milk, which Ellen served up in a cool metal pitcher on a table covered in red-and-white gingham oilcloth. In 1973, Bill and Ellen were in the same apparently hopeless trouble that a lot of farmers were in--the kind of trouble that has driven farm families out of business and their lands under the wheels of urban sprawl. Within the last decade, the U.S. government has Ellen Straus quietly announced that it no longer keeps track of what Photo by: Joan Rosen tiny percentage of Americans feeds us all. A lot of dairy people on the coast north of San Francisco regarded the eventual sale of their lands as inevitable, but the Strauses were not about to hang it up. It was love of the land that moved them--not just their own acres, but the whole bay and its panorama of windswept hills. "1 still think how fortunate we are, just to live in a place like this," Ellen would tell me, years later. If the farms were threatened, she reasoned, the whole landscape was threatened. So while Bill was out working in the fields and barns, Ellen--between raising kids, paying bills, and feeding the family and hands--thought a lot about what to do about it. VVhen I come back to talk to the Strauses in the summer of 1999, nothing I can identify has changed at their 1864 farmstead, a two-stow gable-roofed house with green shutters and a front porch covered with climbing roses. Bill and Ellen still come out to the porch when I drive up, instead of waiting inside for me to knock on the door. Behind the outbuildings there are still bits of broken farm machines overwhelmed by raspberry bushes full of songbirds. The Strauses invite me into the kitchen, which looks exactly the same. Ellen is a rounded, apple-cheeked, friendly woman with curly gray hair. Bill, now in his mid-80s, sits down across from me at the table, still covered in that same red-and-white oilcloth. He is a small, sturdy man with clear, sharp, comprehending eyes; only recently, his daughter says, has Bill retired from lugging 90-pound feed sacks. He says little-he's been that way as long as I've known him; hard work was the way he spoke. 2/2/2004 http ://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm ? content_item_id=86 7 & folder_id=687 ITEM NO. rob DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY NOISE REGULATIONS AND CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF NOISE REGULATIONS FOR CITY PARKS AND FACILITIES The City Council requested a review of the City's noise ordinance and the City policies governing the use of amplified sound in City parks and other outdoor facilities. The Council wanted to make the noise ordinance more effective and to address concerns expressed about the impact of amplified sound on neighborhoods where City parks and other outdoor facilities are located. City staff also agreed that the ordinance needed revision as enforcement based on the current language was difficult and there were no provisions for City events such as the Sunday in the Park Concert Series or movies in the Plaza. The City Attorney, Police Chief, City Manager and Community Services Director, conducted a review of the noise ordinance and noise regulations affecting City parks. The City has an ordinance regulating noise in the City limits. (See Ukiah City Code (UCC) Sections 6045-6062. (Copies attached as Attachment 1.) That ordinance regulates sound in two principal ways: (1) it imposes decibel limits in different zoning districts, based on time of day (see §6048), and (2) it establishes a "general noise Continued on Page ? RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce by title only the ordinance amending Sections 6058, 6060 and 1985 of the Ukiah City Code and introduce the ordinance, after the title is read by the City Clerk. 2. Adopt resolution establishing policies regulating amplified sound in parks, streets, and other City owned outdoor areas. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Leave these sections unchanged or propose alternative amendments to the City noise regulations. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council David J. Rapport, City Attorney, Larry DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services Candace Horsley, City Manager, John Williams, Police Chief 1. UCC Sections 6045-6062, 2. Ordinance Amending Sections (Clean), 3.Ordinance Amending Sections (Redlined), 4. Proposed Resolution Candace Horsl~y~City Manager December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 regulation" which makes it unlawful for any person to willfully make "... any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area." (See Section 6058.) As currently written Section 6058 requires the use of ten listed "standards" to determine whether a violation has occurred. In reviewing the noise ordinance the City staff concluded that it would be more enforceable, if three changes are made. 1. Objections could be made that Section 6058 is too vague to be enforceable because of the language requiring the use of all ten of the listed standards and because the standards themselves are unclear as written. Accordingly, staff proposes amending the section to make use of one or more of the standards permissive rather than mandatory and the description of some of the standards is revised to make them clearer and easier to apply. 2. Currently, Section 6060 makes a violation of the noise ordinance a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, imprisonment in the County jail or both. As a result, if a citation is issued for a violation of the ordinance, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. If a trial is requested, the district attorney must prosecute the case. To reduce the time and cost of prosecuting such violations, staff proposes amending Section 6060 to make a violation an infraction punishable by a fine only. The fine goes up for multiple offenses within one year. With this change most violations can be resolved in court without the participation of lawyers and the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. 3. Section 1985 addresses the use of amplifiers in City parks and provides that the noise ordinance will apply to that use, unless the City Manager or the Director of Community Services has issued a permit pursuant to Section 1992 which allows for the exclusive use of all or a portion of a park. If the permit is issued, the use of amplifiers, including decibel limits, is regulated by conditions in the permit. The current permit process does not include provisions for the Concerts in the Park or other City sponsored events. To avoid the complaint that City sponsored events may violate the decibel limits in the noise ordinance or the general noise regulation, Staff proposes amending this section to make an exception for City sponsored events and to authorize the City Manager to adopt regulations for City sponsored events. Staff has also provided a draft resolution establishing specific amplified sound policies for the City's parks, streets, and public areas. This is in response to Council discussion regarding the increasing number of events and private parties taking place each weekend. The City's current policy requires a permit to be issued by the Community Services Director in order for amplified music to be played in a park, only when a park site is reserved by a private party. These policies also provide time limits as to when and how long the music can be played. The revised changes include requiring permits for all amplified music in the park. As Council is now considering the adoption of a new citywide noise ordinance, staff believes it is an appropriate time to formalize these policies through a resolution. December 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 The proposed resolution (Attachment #4) provides policies regulating the number of permits which can be issued after 8 pm in any single location each year and establishes fines for violating the policies by referring to specific sections of the proposed noise ordinance to describe the penalty. A copy of the ordinance amending these sections in a clean and a redlined version is attached as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. Staff requests review, discussion, and approval of the recommended changes. ~,TTACHMENT._..~._ 6045: DECLARATION OF POLICY: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. At certain levels noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and in the public interest shall be systematically proscribed. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6046: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this Chapter are defined as follows: mo Bo Co Do Eo Fo Go Ho Ambient Noise: "Ambient noise" is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen (15) minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources, at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made. Decibel (dB): "Decibel" shall mean a unit of level when the base of the logarithm is the tenth root of ten and the quantities concerned are proportional to power. Emergency Work: "Emergency work" shall mean work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. Person: "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature. Sound Level: "Sound level" (noise level) in decibels (dB) is the sound measured with the "A" weighting and slow response by a sound level meter. Sound Level Meter: "Sound level meter" shall mean an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels which satisfies the pertinent requirements in American Standard Specifications for sound level meters S 1.4-1971 or the most recent revision thereof. Motor Vehicles: "Motor vehicles" shall include, but not be limited to, mini-bikes and go-carts. Sound Amplifying Equipment: "Sound amplifying equipment" shall mean any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound. "Sound Jo amplifying equipment" shall not include standard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed. "Sound amplifying equipment," as used in this Chapter, shall not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes. Commercial Purpose: "Commercial purpose" shall mean and include the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, or any goods, or any services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public to, or advertising for, or soliciting patronage or customers to or for any performance, show, entertainment, exhibition, or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating such sound equipment. Noncommercial Purpose: "Noncommercial purpose" shall mean the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than a "commercial purpose." "Noncommercial purpose" shall mean and include, but shall not be limited to, philanthropic, political, patriotic and charitable purposes. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6047: SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT CRITERIA: Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the "A" weighting. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6048: AMBIENT BASE NOISE LEVEL: Where the ambient noise level is less than designated in this Section the respective noise level in this Section shall govern. Sound Level A, decibels Zone Time R1 & R2 10 pm to 7 am 40 R1 & R2 7 pm to 10 pm 45 R1 & R2 7 am to 7 pm 50 R3 10pm to 7 am 45 R3 7 am to 10 pm 50 Commercial 10 pm to 7 am 60 Commercial 7 am to 10 pm 65 Industrial (M) Anytime 70 (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980; amd. by Ord. 803, §1, adopted 1983) 6049: RADIOS, TELEVISION SETS AND SIMILAR DEVICES: Ao Use Restricted: It shall be unlawful for any person within any residential zone of the City to use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of neighboring residents or of any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. B. Prima Facie Violation: Any noise level originating from a radio, television or similar device exceeding the ambient base level at the property line of any property (or, if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining apartment) by more than five (5) decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6050: HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS: It shall be unlawful for any person within the City to sell anything by outcry within any area of the City zoned for residential uses. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food, and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses and other similar licensed public entertainment events. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6051: SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS AND CHURCHES: It shall be unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk, or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalk or public place indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6052: ANIMALS AND FOWL: No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by such person any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any sound or cry, shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in any residential neighborhood. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6053: MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, FANS AND AIR CONDITIONING: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than five (5) decibels between seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6054: CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS: It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet (500') therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction type device (between the hours of 7:00 P.M. of one day and 7:00 A.M. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained form the Director of Public works. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in {}6046 of this Article. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6055: VEHICLE REPAIRS: It shall be unlawful for any person within any residential area of the City to repair, rebuild, or test any motor vehicle between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. of one day and eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. of the next day in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance as a result of noise resulting from the activity. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6056: MOTOR DRIVEN VEHICLES: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor driven vehicle within the City in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance as a result of noise from the activity; provided, however, any such vehicle which is operated upon any public highway, street, or right of way shall be excluded from the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6057: REGULATIONS: The commercial and noncommercial use of sound amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations: Ao The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human speech, or both. The operation of sound amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall only occur between the hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and six o'clock (6:00) P.M. each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. The operation of sound amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes shall only occur between the hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. C. Sound level emanating from sound amplifying equipment shall not exceed fifteen (15) D. E. decibels above the ambient base noise level. Nor shall it be audible at any distance in excess of two hundred feet (200') from the amplifying equipment. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C of this Section, sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred feet (200') of churches, schools, hospitals. In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6058: GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this Section exists shall include, but not be limited to the following: A. The level of the noise; B. The intensity of the noise; C. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; D. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; E. The level and intensity of the background noise, if any; F. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; G. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; H. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; I. The time of the day or night the noise occurs; J. The duration of the noise; K. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and, L. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6059: EXEMPTIONS: The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance, to wit: A. Garbage collection activities subject to City franchise; B. Operation of street sweepers by City personnel or the operation of sweepers under contract to the City. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6060: VIOLATIONS; MISDEMEANORS: Any person violating any of the provisions of this Article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or be imprisoned in the City or County jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6061: VIOLATIONS; ADDITIONAL REMEDIES; INJUNCTIONS: As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle, or machinery in violation of any provision of this Article, which operation or maintenance emits noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in the area, shall be deemed and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) 6062: SEVERABILITY: If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Article or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provisions of this Chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Article are hereby declared to be severable. (Ord. 748, Article 1, adopted 1980) .~,.TTACHMENT ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING UKIAH CITY CODE SECTIONS 6058 AND 6060 IN DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 6, ENTITLED "NOISE REGULATION "AND SECTION 1985 IN DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 12 ENTITLED: "PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES." The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Sections 6058 and 6060 in Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6 of the Ukiah City Code, entitled "Noise Regulation" are amended to read as follows: §6058: GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. Standards which may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this Section exists include, but are not be limited to, the following: A. The level of the noise; B. The intensity of the noise; C. Whether the nature of the noise is unusual; D. Whether the noise stands out against the level and intensity of the background noise, if any; F. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; G. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; ORDINANCE NO. 1 H. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; I. Whether the noise occurs at a time of day when most people expect relative quiet; J. Whether the noise occurred only once for a short period of time or occurs more than once and for longer periods of time: and, K. Whether the noise is produced by a reasonable commercial activity during normal business hours. 6060: VIOLATIONS; INFRACTION: Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation within one year; and five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additional violation within one year of committing the first offense. SECTION TWO Section 1985 in Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code, Entitled "Park and Recreation Facilities" is hereby amended to read as follows. 1985: AMPLIFIERS: The Noise Ordinance of the City shall be effective in City parks and other City owned outdoor facilities unless a permit has been obtained or the park is being used by the City for a City sponsored event. The City Manager or the Director of Recreation and Parks shall have the authority to issue the permit described herein and to establish policies for City sponsored events under reasonable decibel limitations. Any person failing to abide by the decibel limitations in the conditions of such permit may have the permit summarily revoked by a police officer or other duly authorized City representative. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. ORDINANCE NO. 2 This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on ,200_, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Adopted on ,200_ by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: , Mayor ATTEST: , City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING UKIAH CITY CODE SECTIONS 6058 AND 6060 IN DIVISION 7, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 6, ENTITLED "NOISE REGULATION "AND SECTION 1985 IN DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 12 ENTITLED: "PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES." ATTACHMENT The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Sections 6058 and 6060 in Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6 of the Ukiah City Code, entitled "Noise Regulation" are amended to read as follows: §6058: GENERAL NOISE REGULATIONS: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this _Chapter, and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. · Standards whiCh,may be Considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions- of this Section exists,include, but are not be limited to, the fOllowing: A. The level of the noise; B. The intensity of the noise; C. Whether the nature of the noise is,unusual; . D. Whether the,noise,stands out aqainst the level and intensity of the background noise, if any; F. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; G. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; H. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; I.,Whether the noise occurs at a time of day when most people expect relative quiet; ORDINANCE NO. 1 Deleted: The standards Formatted: Normal Deleted: shall i Deleted: shall .. Delete. d: usual or i Format't~Kl: Normal ; Deleted: origin of the i Deleted: is natural or unnatural; ¶ EoThe ,, Fo .m?tted:Norma! Deleted: The time of the day or night the noise occurs; Formatted: Normal K. ,Whether the noise is produced by a .;!!a(~.?~&~p_S&.commercial ,activity_d_!j business hours. 6060: VIOLATIONS; INFRACTION: Any person violating any of the provisions of this Article shall be,guilty of an iniraci~,o~', j}t~r~,~si~,~ble b~a~le not exceeding;x~e hundred dollars (~_~.00)~ora~j2;~ ' ' '~,"~ ' '~ TM -~ ' ~ ~"~"~-'-~ ~ ~- SECTION TWO Section 1985 in Division 1, Chapter 12 of the Ukiah City Code, Entitled "Park and Recreation Facilities" is hereby amended to read as follows. 1985: AMPLIFIERS:, The Noise Ordinance of the City shall be effective in City parks.Fnd ........ o9]Z4.~ Ei_Lt!,:~Z~{~!.~L~J._t_d~2_~?.£_j.~]fL!h[c_,'~..unless a permit has been obtained,z;!r tb_~zpark ~s be~_s._<.~.L~L~__t!]_~ ~2~ for a Ci tv :3_[%/.L!..~!.?.¢:%!J?%!2L The City Manager or the Director of Recreation and Parks shall have the authority to issue the permit described herein and k: est3bllsh f)L,,ilute,~ ¢(.)f C~ty~Jst)o~!sor~r! LCV(~I/IS under reasonable decibel limitations.__ Any person failing to abide by the decibel limitations in the conditions of such permit may have the permit summarily revoked by a police officer or other duly authorized City representative. I. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption Introduced by title only on ,200_, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Adopted on ,200_ by the following roll call vote: AYES: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Deleted: The duration of the noise; Formatted: Normal Deleted.' Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and, ¶ L Deleted: or noncommercial Deleted: deemed Deleted: misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount Deleted: five Deleted: 500 Deleted: or be imprisoned in the City or County jail Deleted: period not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such Deleted: is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute Deleted: separate Deleted: and shall be punishable as such. Formatted: Font: Bold Deleted: Deleted:. Deleted: ¶ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING POLICIES REGULATING AMPLIFIED sOUND IN PARKS, STREETS, AND OTHER CITY OWNED OUTDOOR AREAS WHEREAS, on the City Council adopted Ordinance No. amending Ukiah City Code ("UCC") Sections 6058 and 6060 entitled "Noise Regulation" and Section 1985, entitled "Parks and Recreation Facilities, for the purpose of better regulating noise throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to preserve a reasonable balance between the need to protect the quiet enjoyment of residential neighborhoods and the use of City parks, streets (when used pursuant to a City issued encroachment permit) and other City-owned outdoor facilities for community events; and WHEREAS, to achieve this objective the City Council of the City of Ukiah wishes to establish specific policies for the regulation of amplified sound in parks, streets, and other City owned outdoor facilities. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that to provide guidance in the implementation of the City's Noise Ordinance (UCC Sections 6045-6062), which under the amended version of UCC Section 1985, applies to City parks, except when the Parks are used for a City sponsored event, the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby adopt the following policies and regulations for the use of City parks, streets, and City owned outdoor areas. These regulations will apply to the use of City parks pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with UCC Section 1922 as well as all other users of City parks, streets (when used pursuant to a City issued encroachment permit) and City- owned outdoor facilities. They do no apply to City sponsored events: There shall be no amplified sound from live music, disc jockeys, bullhorns or public address systems in any park, street (when used pursuant to a City issued encroachment permit), or City owned outdoor facility without a prior approved permit from the Director of Community Services. . There shall be no amplified sound allowed prior to 10:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday without being so specified in an approved permit. . There shall be no more than three (3) permits issued for any single location in any single year for amplified sound between 8p.m. and 10 p.m. . With the exception of City sponsored events as defined in UCC Section 1985, no event, group, or individual shall be permitted to produce amplified sound as described above for a period greater than four (4) hours. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. Ira DATE: December 15, 2004 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENT TO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION The City Clerk's office submitted a News Release on November 15, 2004, soliciting applicants to fill an unexpired term on the Airport Commission due to the vacancy created when Mark Ashiku was elected Mayor. The term of office expires June 30, 2006 and the appointee must reside within the City limits of Ukiah. Two applicants submitted an application by the deadline of December 6, 2004: Mr. Allan Hunter and Mr. Carl H. Steinmann II. Per Resolution No. 2001-61, Council is to conduct interviews of applicants for the Airport Commission. Earlier in the meeting, the City Council had an opportunity to speak with the two applicants regarding their possible appointment to this Commission. The responsibility for the first nomination at this time is Mayor Ashiku. Council also needs to adopt a Resolution making one appointment to the Airport Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution making appointment to the Airport Commission to fill the term of office of a Ukiah resident expiring June 30, 2006. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to re-advertise for the vacancy. Citizen Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments: N/A Ukiah City Council t ~ i ' Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution making appointment to the Airport Commission 2. Terms of City of Ukiah Boards and Commissions 3. News Release Candace Horsily, City Man~J~r ASR: Commission Appointment - Airpot 2004 i~, RESOLUTION NO. 2005 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENT AIRPORT COMMISSION WHEREAS, on December 1, 2004, Mark Ashiku was sworn into the position of Mayor for the City of Ukiah and resigned his position with the Airport Commission, for a term which expires June 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, the vacancy on the Airport Commission was duly advertised until the close of applications on December 6, 2004, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council interviewed Airport Commission applicants on December 15, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council approves the nomination submitted per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 2001-61, and does hereby appoint to fill the unexpired term of office a resident within the City limits of Ukiah on the Airport Commission to June 30, 2006. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of December, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ATTAb"t-~ENT ~" TERMS OF CITY OF UKIAH BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS As of December 1, 2004 *Next City Councilmember to nominate for appointment to this Commission/Board. Airport Commission - 3 year term ** - (Mayor Ashiku) **Ken Fowler - Chairman Mark Ashiku 6/30/01 & **Michael Whetzel 6/30/01 & Bill Beard Dottle Deerwester Date Present Term A~Dointed Expires 7/7/04 6/30/07 5/19/04 6/30/06 5/19/04 6/30/05 7/17/02 6/30/05 7/7/04 6/30/07 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence Civil Service Board Albert Beltrami (reappointed by Council 9/6/95) Bob Warner (appointed 2003) Ron Caudillo (appointed 2003) Cultural Arts Advisory Board - (Mayor Ashiku) Currently Inactive Demolition Permit Review Committee - 2 year term (McCowen) Director of Community Development Director of Public Works/City Engineer Building Official Chair of Design Review Committee Mendocino County Historical Society rep, - Judy Pruden (Chairperson) City of Ukiah Resident- William D. French, Jr. 7/7/04 6/30/06 7/7/04 6/30/06 Desi_~n Review Board - (Ukiah Redevelopment Agency - 3-year term - Commissioner Baldwin) *Donna Berry, Chairperson 7/18/01 6/30/04-05 *William P. French, Jr. 7/18/01 6/30/04-05 *Estok Menton 7/18/01 6/30/04-05 *Richard Moser 7/18/01 6/30/04-05 **Marge Boynton Moynahan 7/18/01 6/30/04-05 Five persons with design experience: four shall reside, or own real property or a business within the City of Ukiah City Limits;*one shall represent the community at large with no ownership or residence requirement. Disaster Council - City of Ukiah Councilmember - Paul Andersen Councilmember- Marl Rodin City Manager - Candace Horsley Police Captain - Chris Dewey Fire Operations Captain ~ City Attorney- David Rapport (no vote) Federal, State and Local Organizations: American Red Cross California Dept. of Forestry Mendocino Emergency Services Authority Mendocino Transit Authority Pacific Bell Pacific Gas and Electric 12/02/98 Second Vice Chair 2000 11/05/97 Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Ukiah Unified School District Ukiah Valley Medical Center Emergency Services Coordinator- Mike Harris Radio Amateur Civic Emergency Services (R.A.C.E.S.) TERMS OF CITY OF UKIAH BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS Terms: December 1,2004 Page 1 of 2 As of December 1, 2004 Date Appointed Investment Oversight Committee - Public Member 2-year term - (Crane) Roy Smith - City Councilmember Mari Rodin - City Councilmember Candace Horsley - City Manager Gordon Elton - Finance Director Allen Carter- City Treasurer, Chair Monte Hill- Public Member 6/30/02 Present Term Expires 6/30/04 Library Advisory Commission - City Representative Councilmember- Philip Baldwin Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission - 3-year term** - (McCowen) Shirley Ann Dietrich - Women's Golf Club **Melody Ann Valles - Public Member **Fredrick Koeppel- Public Member Chamise Cubbison Robert Beltrami, Interim Chairman Joe Chiles - Men's Golf Club -- Jonah Freedman 7/17/02 7/17/02 7/17/02 7/7/04 7/7/04 7/7/04 9/1/04 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence 6~30/05 6~30/05 6~30~05 6/30/07 6~30/07 6~30/07 6~30~07 Paths, Open Space, & Creeks Commission (POSCC): (Crane) Date Am)ointed James Connerton 5/21/03 Howell Hawkes 5/21/03 *Dan Holbrook 5/21/03 *Fred Koeppel 5/21/03 William Randolph 5/21/03 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence Term Expires 6/30/05 6/30/06 6/30/05 6/30/06 6/30/06 *Plannin.q Commission-3 year term - (Mayor Ashiku) Date ADDointed James Mulheren, Chairman 7/17/02 Kathleen Edwards, Vice-Chair 7/17/02 Robert Wallen 7/05/01 Kevin Jennings 7/16/03 Jennifer Puser 7/16/03 Term Expires 6/30/05 1/1/05 6/30/05 1/1/05 ~/3OlO~.1/1/05 ~/30/0~.1/1/05 ~/30/0~,1/1/05 *Effective January 1, 2005, each Planning Commission appointment will be made by individual City Council members Traffic Engineering Committee - (McCowen) Benjamin Kageyama (Public Rep.), Chairman *Steve Turner (Public Rep.) *Bruce Richard (MTA Rep.) Risk Manger- Mike Harris City Engineer- Diana Steele Deputy Public Works Director- Rick Seanor Police Captain- Dan Walker Associate Planner- Dave Lohse Superintendent of Public Works - Jerry Whitaker Appointment 10/06/99 2/4/04 Term Expires Terms: December 1,2004 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 lb MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING FOR PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT IN A NORTH COAST INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Proposition 50, the Water Security Clean Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 was passed by California voters in November 2002. Chapter 8 of the Act included a process for funding of projects under the Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program. The intent of the program is to encourage integrated regional strategies for management of water resources and to provide funding for competitive grants for projects that protect communities from drought, protect and improve water quality, and improve local water security by reducing dependence on imported water. Potential projects authorized by this section of the Act include in part, programs for water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency, storm water capture, storage treatment and management, ground recharge and management projects, and water banking exchange reclamation and improvement of water quality. Approximately $380 million is available for these grants during two funding cycles. The maximum grant amount is $500,000 for planning grants and $50 million for implementation grants. The minimum local match for the implementation grant will be 10% of the total project cost. $50 million is allowed for any one 'regional area' that has agreed to develop or has developed an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Memorandum of Mutual Understanding for participation in and development of the North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 8 of Proposition 50. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Discuss and provide alternate direction to staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A 1. Memorandum of Mutual Understanding Draft Approved:' Candace Horsley, Cit~y Manager 4:CAN/ASR.NClntegratedRegionalWater. 121504 (IRWMP). The 10% matching requirement may be waived if the IRWMP encompasses a region that includes at least one disadvantaged community, includes representatives of the disadvantaged community in the planning process, and is designed to provide direct benefits to the disadvantaged community. Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) began discussions of a North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan that would encompass Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties. Because $50 million is allowed for any one regional plan, the funds will need to be divided among these counties for the first cycle. The second cycle will require 'hydrological regions' to be included in one plan. The Russian River Watershed Association voted as a group to participate in the regional plan. However, Roland Sanford, Mendocino County Water Agency Manager, has spent the last several months with local community agencies to discuss and determine if the County of Mendocino would prefer to form their own regional plan. However, upon identifying the requirements, who would possibly be plan participants and what eligible projects are available in our County, it was determined that researching these issues would require a longer timeframe, beyond the deadline of January 2005 for signing on as a regional participant. Mr. Sanford recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the Memorandum of Mutual Understanding (MOMU) for the integrated regional area, in order to maintain maximum flexibility and retain the option of participating in the development of SCWA's North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Mendocino County may withdraw from this agreement at any time. The MOMU provides a mechanism for identifying North Coast Plan participants, and at the same time formalizes a working relationship among the North Coast Plan participants. The document in non-binding and, in essence, is an agreement to work collaboratively on the North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The City Attorney has reviewed the MOMU as to form. Staff is recommending approval of the MOMU at this time. I i ~ DRAFT August 20, 2004 1 of 6 Memorandum of Mutual Understandings Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to establish the mutual understandings of North Coast area agencies with respect to their joint efforts towards developing a North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) that will increase regional coordination, collaboration and communication and help in obtaining funding for water- related projects. 2. GOALS The goals of the IRWMP are: 2.1. To develop a comprehensive plan to facilitate regional cooperation in providing water supply reliability, water recycling, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture and management, flood management, wetlands enhancement and creation, and environmental and habitat protection and improvement. 2.2. To foster coordination, collaboration and communication between North Coast agencies responsible for water-related issues and interested stakeholders, to achieve greater efficiencies, enhance public services, and build public support for vital projects. 2.3. To improve regional competitiveness for State and Federal grant funding. 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The plan envisioned by state legislators and state resource agencies that integrates the projects and management plans of all water-related agencies and stakeholders in a region, in this case the North Coast Region, in order to foster coordination, collaboration and communication among those entities and to assist decision-makers in awarding grants and other funding. The plan will address water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. 3.2. Agency. A public entity, be it a special district, city or other governmental entity, responsible for providing one or more services in the areas of water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. 3.3. Service function. A water-related individual service function provided by an agency, i.e. water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning, and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. 3.4. Project. A comprehensive list of resource projects or programs, in need of funding that addresses: water supply, water quality, wastewater, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning or aquatic habitat protection and restoration. 3.5. Management plan. An agency's or organization's plan, based in part on the land-use plans within the entity's jurisdiction, that addresses how that entity will provide service in the future in one or more of the following service functions: water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning or aquatic habitat protection and restoration. 3.6. Integration. Assembling into one document the water-related management strategies, projects and plans in the North Coast Region. The first phase would be to identify water management strategies for the region and the priority projects that work together to demonstrate how these strategies work together to provide reliable water supply, protect or improve water quality, provide watershed protection and planning, and provide environmental restoration and fisheries protection. Projects and plans would be categorized and opportunities to identify regional benefits of linkages between multiple water management strategies among projects and plans of separate service functions and to see where projects and plans of separate service functions may further interrelate, e.g. wastewater treatment and water recycling or habitat restoration. 3.7. North Coast Technical Review Panel. The panel comprised of representatives from each North Coast County appointed by IRVVMP participants in the North Coast Region to compile and integrate projects and management plans of the North Coast region. Review panel members will define the process of compilation and integration including format, schedules and ground rules to ensure process consistency and uniformity. 4. IRWMP PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 4.1. Public agencies. Public agencies, which have developed projects and management plans, are responsible to their respective electorates, and are devoting staff to the process, will take the lead as described in "Approach to developing the IRVVMP" below. These agencies will be the signatories to this memorandum of mutual understandings. 4.2. Contributing entities. Other entities, such as business and environmental groups, are considered valuable contributors and will continue to be invited and encouraged to participate and will be invited to be signatories to this memorandum of mutual understandings. 4.3. Regulatory agencies. These agencies, such as the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Coastal Conservancy, and Department of Fish and Game, will be invited to participate. If they cannot participate in work meetings, representatives of the technical review panel will keep them advised of project and plan progress and seek guidance as needed. 5. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS 5.1. Need for a North Coast IRWMP 5.1.1. To foster increased coordination, collaboration and communication between North Coast water-related agencies and interested stakeholders that may result in more effectively managed resources, cost efficiencies and better service to the public. 5.1.2. Also, representatives of state resource agencies and state legislators have suggested that qualification of some state grants and other funding criteria will require development and implementation of Integrated Regional Water Management Plans. 5.2. Subject matter scope of the IRWMP. The IRWMP will include, but may not necessarily be limited to, water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, stormwater/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. It is acknowledged that the management plans of each individual public agency are based, in part, on the land-use plans within an agency's jurisdiction. Therefore, the resultant IRWMP will by design have incorporated the land-use plans and assumptions intrinsic to the respective water-related service function. 5.3. Geographical scope of the IRWMP. The North Coast Region for this Memorandum is defined as the seven North Coast counties - Del Norte, Siskiyou, Humboldt, Trinity, Lake, Mendocino and Sonoma- even though some areas of some counties and individual agencies may lay outside the North Coast hydrologic region. 5.4. Approach to developing the IRWMP 5.4.1. A reasonable approach towards developing the IRWMP is first for the participants involved to create a technical review panel whose members work together to compile their individual projects and management plans to see where cooperative efforts could be employed. The panel would also work to identify needs and list projects that may qualify for funding under various state and federal grant and loan programs. 5.4.2. The proposed forum for this regional planning effort is through the associations, coalitions, or other entities to which the majority belong, inviting others agencies and entities to participate in the effort. 5.4.3. The technical review panel should refer to any already completed and ongoing compilation efforts for information and input. 5.4.4. Once there has been a compilation of projects and plans for the separate, service function areas, the North Coast technical review panel will place all the projects and plans into one integrated document. As stated above in "definitions," the first phase would be to identify water management strategies for the region and the priority projects that work together to demonstrate how these strategies work together to provide reliable water supply, protect or improve water quality, provide watershed protection and planning, and provide environmental restoration and fisheries protection. Projects and plans would be categorized and opportunities to identify regional benefits of linkages between multiple water management strategies among projects and plans of separate service functions and to see where projects and plans of separate service functions may further interrelate, e.g. wastewater treatment and water recycling or habitat restoration. 5.5. Decision-making. Consensus will be sought in the event the need for a decision arises. 5.6. Approval of the IRWMP. IRVVMP approval and adoption will occur by participating agency and organization signatures on the IRVVMP. 5.7. Non-binding nature. This document and participation in this IRWMP effort are nonbinding, and in no way suggest that an agency may not continue its own planning and undertake efforts to secure project funding from any source. An agency may withdraw from participation at any time. 5.8. Personnel and financial resources. It is expected that agencies and organizations will contribute the personnel and financial resources necessary to develop the IRWMP. 5.9. Other on-going regional efforts. Development of the IRWMP is separate from efforts of other organizations to develop water-related plans on a regional basis. These other plans include, but are not limited to, Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program, Eel Russian River Commission, and Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 160 development. As the IRWMP is developed, work products can be shared with these separate efforts to provide them with current information. 5.10. Reports and communications. The North Coast technical review panel will regularly report on their progress to the agencies and stakeholders they represent and the associations or organizations to which they belong that are involved in the IRWMP process. 5.11. Termination. Because the IRWMP will require periodic review and updating for use into the future, it is envisioned that the joint efforts of those involved will be ongoing in maintaining a living document. Thus this document will remain as a reflection of the understandings of the participants. As indicated, individual signatories of this Memorandum may terminate their involvement at any time. 6. SIGNATORIES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS We, the undersigned representatives of our respective agencies, acknowledge the above as our understanding of how the North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan will be developed. signature signature printed name printed name agency agency date date signature signature printed name printed name agency agency date signature printed name More signature blocks as required agency date Proposal for Coordination and Development of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the North Coast Region NO~ C~t Region Technical Review Panel W~r ~pp!y! Wastewater ~nagemen~ Water Qua~ Fl~,:Control Potential North Coast Technical Review Panel Composition: · Seven county North Coast region representation. · Two or three representatives from each of the individual service function groups (water supply/water quality, wastewater, stormwater management/flood control, watershed management/habitat protection/restoration). · Representatives from organizations that are not public agencies may also be invited to participate. Potential North Coast Technical Review Panel Duties: · Defines the process for data compilation including format, schedule, and ground rules to ensure consistency and uniformity. · Compiles and integrates individual projects and plans for separate service functions into a single, integrated document. Potential Association and Organization Duties (Russian River Watershed Association, etc.): · Provides regional forum for compilation of individual agency service function projects and plans into regional projects and plans. · Invites agencies that are not members to participate in the data compilation effort. · Establishes and oversees an ad hoc committee to work with participating IRWMP partners and state agencies to identify potential funding mechanisms and state and federal agency priorities for the North Coast IRWMP Proposed North Coast Region Technical Del Norte County Siskiyou County Humboldt County Trinity County Mendocino County Lake County Sonoma County Fisheries Interest Timber Interest Regional Association Review Panel: City of Crescent City Five Counties Salmon Conservation Planning Committee Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District County of Trinity Mendocino County Water Agency County of Lake Sonoma County Water Agency Cai Trout California Forestry Association Russian River Watershed Association AGENDA ITEM NO: llc MEETING DATE: December 15, 2004 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF UKIAH CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES With the recent election, it is time to assign Councilmembers to the various committees as listed on Attachment 1, the 2004 Council Committee Assignments. The time commitment required for the various committees is variable, and some of the committees are required by law, where others satisfy a liaison function, such a s the Chamber of Commerce, Main Street Board of Directors, and Sun House Guild. Other committees are on hiatus, such as the Beautification, Courthouse Facilities Planning, Air Quality Management, and Film Advisory Board. Whether Council wishes to assign members to these committees needs to be discussed, or staff can bring back requests for representation if these committees become active. The Mayor will make the appointments to the various committees. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Appoint Councilmembers to each of the active committees. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Appoint Councilmembers to all committees, active or inactive. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A 1. 2004 Council Committee Assignments 2. Description of Council Committees Approved: Candace Horsley, l~ity Manager 4:CAN/ASR.CommitteeAssignments. 121504~ Attachment ~ IIII I I J 2003 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Beautification Committee City of Ukiah Disaster Council City Selection Committee City/County Leadership Group Council/County Supervisor Committee Courthouse Facilities Planning Committee Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Liaison Larson, Alt: Andersen Andersen/Rodin/Horsley Larson Horsley/Larson Larson/Smith On hiatus Rodin, Alt: Andersen Library Advisory Board Rodin Larson Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Main Street Board of Directors Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) Mendocino County Air Quality Management District PM-10 Incentive Committee Mendocino County Film Advisory Board (Non-Voting) Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Mendocino County Overall Economic Development Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA) Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Recreation Center Group Russian River Watershed Community Council Skateboard Park Committee Solid Waste Committee Sun House Guild ex officio liaison Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) Ukiah Investment Oversight Committee Ukiah Valle Sanitation District Smith, Alt: Andersen Larson, Alt: Rodin Baldwin Baldwin Baldwin, Alt: Smith Horsley Andersen Andersen Smith, Alt: Andersen Rodin, Alt: Larson Baldwin, Alt: Rodin Andersen, Alt: Larson Andersen Rodin Smith, Darryl Barnes, Alt: Andersen Smith, Alt: Rodin Baldwin, Alt: Smith Economic Development & Financing Corporation (EDFC) Finance Review Committee Rodin, Alt: Smith Smith, Alt: Andersen Last Updated 2/17/04 Attachment #_ INFORMATION ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS COMMITTEE MTG LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/ COMMITTEE FUNCTION DATE/TIME CONTACT Beautifica- As needed Civic Center City Manager's Office Selects business and citizen tion Commit- 300 Seminary 300 Seminary Ave. projects that enhance our tee Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 community for recognition 463-6213 Greater Ukiah 3r~ Wed. of 200 S. School 200 $. School St. To represent and set policy Chamber of month, 9:00 St. Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 for Chamber and area busi- Commerce a.m. 462-4705 nesses Liaison City/County Varies Rotates be- City Manager's Office City Managers, Mayor, Leadership tween cities 300 Seminary Ave. Board Chair, meet to dis- Group Ukiah, CA 95482 cuss common issues 463-6213 City Selec- Called as BO$ Conf. Rm, C/O: BOS Makes appointments to tion Commit- required by 501 Low Gap 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 LAFCO and Airport Land use tee Clerk of the Rd, Rm. 1090, Ukiah, CA 95482 Commission Board Ukiah 463-4221 City of Ukiah Varies Civic Center, Risk Manager Review EOC and Emer- Disaster 300 Seminary 300 Seminary Ave. gency Plans Council Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Council/ Varies Varies City Manager's Office Two Supervisors and two County 300 Seminary Ave. Councilmembers meet to Supervisor Ukiah, CA 95482 discuss common issues Committee 463-6213 Courthouse On Hiatus Typically County C/O: BO$ Address facility needs of Facilities Courthouse 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 County Criminal Justice Fa- Planning Ukiah, CA 95482 cilities Committee 463-4221 Investment Varies Civic Center, Finance Director Reviews City investments, Oversight 300 Seminary 300 Seminary Ave. policies, and strategies Committee Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Library Advi- 3r° Thursday of Various Mendo Ukiah County Library Review library policy and sory Board each mo., 1:00 Cnty Libraries 463-4491 activities Mendo. Cnty 1 ~ Monday of Civic Center, Frank McMichaels Required by legislation - Local Area month, 10:00 300 Seminary 200 So. School Street, planning spheres of Influ- Formation a.m. Ave., Ukiah Suite 2 ence, annexation, service Commission Ukiah, Ca 95482 areas, and special districts (LAFCO) 463-4470 Main Street 1sT Thursday of 200 So. School Joy Beeler Develops activities for Program month, 8:00 St., Ukiah 200 So. School St. downtown economic Board of a.m. Ukiah, CA 95482 development program Directors 463-6729 Mendocino 1 =~ Monday of Civic Center, Phillip Dow Plan and allocate State fund- Council of month, 1:30 300 Seminary 367 N. State St., Ste 206 ing, transportation, infra- Governments p.m. Ave., Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 structure and project County (MCOG) 463-1859 wide. Mendo. Cnty On hiatus County Gov't Chris Brown Determines methods for re- Air Quality Center Air Quality Planner ducing particulate air pollu- Mgt Dist. PM- 501 Low Gap 463-4354 tion. 10 Incentive Conf. Room C Committee Ukiah Mendocino On hiatus CIO BOS Develop and recommend County Film 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 policy for the production of Advisory Ukiah, CA 95482 films made in Mendocino Board 463-4221 County. (Non-Voting) Mendocino 2no Thursday of Ukiah Civic Cen- Barbara Spazek Develops coordination for County month, 7:00 ter, 300 Semi- P.O. Box 751 water resources and current Inland Water p.m. nary Ave., Conf. Ukiah, CA 95482 water rights: Potter Valley and Power Room 5 462-1961 (afternoons) project - Eel River Diversion Commission Mendocino On hiatus C/O: BO$ County Eco- 501 Low Gap, Rm 1090 nomic Devel- Ukiah, CA 95482 opment 463-4221 Strategy Mendocino 4TM Wed. of Rotates Mike Sweeney County-wide Solid Waste Solid Waste month, 9:00 between P.O. Box 123 JPA Mgmt. a.m. Willits and Ukiah Ukiah, CA 95482 Authority 468-9710 (MSWMA) Mendocino 2n~ Thur. of Alternating Bruce Richard County-wide bus transporta- Transit Au- month, locations 241 Plant Road tion issues and funding thority (MTA) afternoon Ukiah, CA 95482 Board of Di- 462-1422 rectors Northern 4TM Thur. of Roseville, CA Denise Dow Pool of public utilities for California month, 9:30 P.O. Box 15129 electric generation and dis- Power a.m. Roseville, CA 95851- patch Agency 0129 (NCPA) 916/781-4202 Transmission 4m Thur. of Roseville, CA P.O. Box 15129 Pool of public utilities to Agency of month, 9:00 Roseville, CA 95851- manage CA-OR project elec- Northern a.m.) 0129 tric transmission lines California 916/852-1673 (TANC) Recreation Varies Location varies Deborah Mead To develop cultural and Center Group P.O. Box 561 recreational center in the Ukiah, CA 95482 valley 462-8562 Russian 4TM Thursday, Windsor Town City Manager's Office Consider issues related to River 9:00 a.m. Hall 300 Seminary Ave. Russian River - plans pro- Watershed Ukiah, CA 95482 jects and funding requests Association 463-6213 Skateboard Second Friday 300 Seminary Larry DeKnoblough Assists with development of Park Commit- of each month Ave. 300 Seminary Ave. a skateboard park within the tee Ukiah 463-6221 City of Ukiah Solid Waste As needed Ukiah City Manager's Office Review solid waste Sub- 300 Seminary Ave. recommendations committee Ukiah, CA 95482 463-6213 Sun House 2r" Tuesday of Sun House, 431 431 S. Main St. Support and expand Grace Guild ex offi- month, 4-6 p.m. S. Main St., Ukiah, CA 95482 Hudson Museum cio liaison Ukiah 467-2836 Ukiah Valley 3r" Wed. of BOS Conf. Rm, Bernie Ziemianek Reviews and determines Sanitation month, 1:30 501 Low Gap, City of Ukiah policy and budget for sewer district p.m. (called by Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave system and plant in District (UVSD) Utility Director if Ukiah, CA 95482 area there is 463-6295 business to conduct) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Economic 1st Wed. of Location Madeline Holtkamp Multi-agency co-op for eco- Development even-numbered varies 655 Kings Ct. Ste 200 nomic development and & Financing months, 2:00- Ukiah, CA 95482 business loan program Corp. (EDFC) 4:00 p.m. 467-5953 Finance Varies Civic Center, City Manager's Office Review URA Economic De- Review 300 Semi- 300 Seminary Ave. velopment Fund expendi- Committee nary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482 tures Ukiah 463-6213 Updated on 11129104 4:City Council/Information of Council Committee Assignments ITEM NO. 1 la DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF VICE-MAYOR The Vice-Mayor is the Councilmember who assumes the duties of the Mayor in his/her absence. Historically this position has been filled by the Councilmember with the most tenure on the City Council. The position of Vice Mayor has been held by Councilmember Philip Baldwin since December 1998. On November 5, 2002 Councilmember Baldwin was reelected for another term of office. Currently Mr. Baldwin is the senior member of the Council. The present City Councilmembers are to decide if they want to retain Councilmember Baldwin as Vice-Mayor or if they want to appoint another member of the Council to this position. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion, Appoint a Vice-Mayor for the Ukiah City Council. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Postpone the selection process for Vice- Mayor to a later date. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City of Ukiah City Council Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A None APPROVED: '~I'Z][~'~/-'~ Candace Horsley, City I~nager 4:CAN/ASR.ViceMayorAppt. 121504 Attachment d~ .... State Water Resources Control Board DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS RO. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 (e~s) 65'7-2170 PROTEST Based on Prior FEed AppJicmtion or h~jury to P~or F~ght. s (Pmees~ mased on OT).rafl cmnsJderaffam ~ad~c~ be ~,,mmmd ~ amer,,tde c~ mm..) APPUCA11ON (s) 31_:3~3~7jj 31 495,1 3496 & 31 505 ; [, ~Ve) 6i~__v_gf Ukiah of 300 SeminarY. Ave, Ukiah, CA 95482 ..... (707)463-6210' havemad~a~Fy A~a$~(~s) ~'_3~7_,3149.5,31496, 0fRedwood~-~ County Water Dist. · . ~ ~~~ upderflow of[Russian River, underflow of Mill Creek, direct diversion frdm MilI ~W~ ~ree~i' ~a~ .... See Attachment · I,(We)~pmtestagidrtst~~~be~u~m~eb~ our ~o~m ~dbel]efthepmposedapp~ .us ~ETws: injury to prior rights, and environmental concerns. Whmei~ya~~~t~d? See Atl/t4~chment is your poim cd divmskm cfownWeam from app~k:ard point of divem~on? yes ~ extent of presanl and past ~ d water ~ protastm'~ m 19; pmdecamors h interest from t~is somce is as fo~(mr~ (leave blank if protest based m imior ~ app~calk~): ~)am~u~use4 . 3,1 .00 acre-feet an__n_ually (¢) ~ Mym~mm ~m~n k mare __ _A].!~ _v~.pr (~)pu~ma~s) ~e Municipal J~c4,~,,,',d~m~~~y~~~~~~~? :: : Se.e Attachmen..t · 7. Atrtm~dlhb~hasbeenservedu~~ .,. Nolas: Altach suppm, mrM si-ems as ~. mail' State Water Resources C.,orm~ 8o~rd DJVI~ON OF WATER RIGHTS P,O.Box 2000, .Saclam~to, C.~ 95812-2000 (916)' 657'-Zt70 ' B~sed ~ En~ronmen~d Con~deng~ns. Pubt~ inmre;4. 'Pu~ic Tam% and Other ~sues. 'APPUCATION(s) 313.37, 3149_5r 31496 & 31505 PROTEST 1. t, 0NB) C~'ty of Ukiah bf '300 Seminary AV.e.i**.Ukiah, CA 95482' (707.)463-62~'0.hmmreadc~u~yac~w ......· ' * ' .... . *' ~~~-~mm~~ ...... ~~mm *' Water' Dist ~;~an0~ere~t0,~(~) ~]3~, 31495,31496e~Redw°°d Valley .County . ' ' ~.~~8~ underflow oflRussian River, underflow of Mil "~reek, direct 8fveTsion 'from Mi~ ~~ Cree~.* at a*~ _ See At Each~ent )F~WOb~ ~ above applicat~ ROHIF-NTAL ISSUES, ETC.: Public btsred pmlas~ ~ __,~__~ incrgate how h KoFopdatkm ~ dad II~ Envlmnmenlal pmleat shnuld klenllfy r, pecilic impac~ ,tad provide supporting mdlab on ..... Prole;~ d a genara name (not project 8 .pecllb) or ~ to ~ or legidaled state porLc'y OTHER ISSUES: The ~ppropJiation wB be cor4ra;7 lo lair. wil require aco,~ ~gl'.ts. wfll rx~ bo m Bowd's judKJJctbn, or oonmn-a omar ,, See Attachment 4. A l~e copy of Ibis protest has be~n sen~ upon I~ al~fm.,~ mail Dale: Attachment to Accompany Protest Based on Prior Rights and Environmental Issues Applications 31337, 31495, 31496 and 34505 of Redwood Valley County Water District by the City of Ukiah Item 6: Conditions for Dismissal The City of Ukiah (City) will consider dismissing its protest upon a demonstration by the applicant that the proposed project will not result in injury to the City's ability to divert and serve water to its customers. The City requests that the applicant provide documentation of water availability for its project including an assessment of the potential hydrologic impacts to the surface water and ground water resources of the Ukiah Valley. Any studies conducted in this regard should also include water quality impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed new diversions. The City also expects that the applicant will prepare a comprehensive EIR addressing the appropriate environmental concerns including but not limited to, fisheries, biology, endangered species, water quality, water quantity, growth inducement and others. COUEO74.doc ITEM NO. tie DATE: December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO FILE PROTEST WITH WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD OF REDWOOD VALLEY WATER DISTRICT APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE WATER FROM WEST FORK RUSSIAN RIVER AND MILL CREEK Redwood Valley County Water District ("District") has filed applications with the Water Resources Control Board to appropriate water for multiple uses from Mill Creek and from the West Fork of the Russian River. District representatives conducted a meeting for affected parties which City staff attended. At that meeting the District indicated that it was applying for more water than it could use, it has designated most of Mendocino County as an intended place of use for the water and that some of the water it is seeking could become available to other water purveyors, including the City. They also made the point that the District will need the cooperation of the City and other water districts to transport the water to Redwood Valley. Nevertheless, them are many unanswered questions about these applications and they could impact the City's water rights. The City was granted a 14 day extension of the December 8 deadline for filing a protest, which is now due by December 21. If the City does not file a protest, it will not have standing to participate in proceedings on these applications conducted by the Board. This is a protective filing to insure that the City has standing to protect its interests in proceedings before the Board. The proposed protest is attached as Attachment 1. The protest specifically identifies conditions under which the City would consider dismissing its protest. (Attachment 1, item 6.) As you can see, the protest indicates that the City would consider dismissing Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize Robert Wagner to file protest contained in Attachment 1 on behalf of the City of Ukiah. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: File no protest; revise contents of protest Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager David J. Rapport, City Attorney Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director, Robert Wagner, Wagner & Bonsignore 1. Water Permit Protest APPROVED: Candace Horsley, '~y Manager December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 the protest, if the applicant demonstrates that "... the proposed project will not result in injury to the City's ability to divert and serve water to its customers." Item 6 goes on to describe the additional information and studies the City will need to evaluate the impact of these applications on its water rights. Staff recommends authorizing Bob Wagner of Wagner and Bonsignore to file the protest on behalf of the City. AGENDA ITEM NO: ttf MEETING DATE: December 15, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSIONER APPOINT- MENT PROCESS On June 2, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1055, which established a new process for the appointment of Planning Commissioners. Each member of the City Council shall now appoint one Commissioner. In the previous process, the Council rotated nominations and the entire Council voted on the candidate nominated. Current Planning Commissioners shall remain in office until January 1, 2005, at which time the Council shall appoint the new Planning Commission members, scheduled for the January 5 th Council meeting. The current three seated Planning Commissioners have all expressed interest in continuing as Commissioners. If a Councilmember fails to appoint a Commissioner within 60 days of the January 1, 2005 vacancies, a majority of the City Council shall fill the vacancy by following the procedure used to appoint members to other City commissions and boards. This item is brought before the City Council, as there will be some time needed for each Councilmember to meet with their selected member and discuss the issue of whether he/she would like to fill a Planning Commission seat. Under the current ordinance, there is no City involvement in terms of advertisement, applications, or interviews. Both Vice-Mayor Baldwin and Councilmember Rodin were involved in the adoption of this ordinance and will also be able to answer questions regarding the appointment process. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss Planning Commissioner appointment process, as outlined in Ordinance 1055. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A 1. Ordinance 1055 2. List of current Planning Commissioners Approved: f.~~-'~ _ Candace Horsley, ~ity Manager 4:CAN/ASR. PlanningCommAppoint. 121504 ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTIONS 1151 and 1152 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEIR TERMS OF OFFICE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Sections 1151 and 1152 in Article 4, Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Ukiah City Code are amended to read as follows: § 1151: MEMBERS; APPOINTMENT: Said Commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be residents of the City. Each member of the City Council, including each newly elected or appointed City Council member, shall appoint one Commissioner. A new City Council member selected to fill a vacancy on the Council and serve out an unexpired term of office may replace the Commissioner appointed by that Council member's predecessor in office. If a Commissioner vacates his or her office before the expiration of his or her term of office, the appointing City Council member of that Commissioner shall appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of that Commissioner's term of office. If a City Council member fails to appoint a Commissioner within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs, a majority of the City Council shall fill the vacancy following the procedure used to appoint members to other City commissions and boards. · § 1152: TERMS OF MEMBERS: A Commissioner's term of office shall coincide with the term of the City Council member, including the Mayor, who appointed that Commissioner. SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general. circulation in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Planning ORDINANCE NO. 1 of 2 Commissioners who are in office, when this Ordinance becomes effective, shall remain in office until January 1,2005, even if, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, their term would have expired on or would have extended beyond that date. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission prior to January 1, 2005, it shall be filled by a member of the City Council, including the Mayor. The member of the City Council with the most seniority on the Council shall appoint a Commissioner to fill the first such vacancy. The next most senior City Council member shall appoint a Commissioner to fill the next such vacancy. Any additional such vacancies shall be filled by individual members of the City Council in order of their seniority on the Council. The terms of any such appointees shall end on January 1, 2005. After January 1,2005, a Council member may reappoint to a full term of office a Commissioner he or she appointed prior to JanUary 1, 2005. Introduced by title only on May 19, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Rodin, Smith, and Vice Mayor Baldwin. None.' Councilmember Andersen and Mayor Larson. None. Adopted on June 2, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, and Vice Mayor Baldwin Mayor Larson None None ATTEST: Eric Larson, Mayor ~ordon Elton, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1055 2of2 ITEM NO. ltg DATE' December 15, 2004 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN MCCANN, TEMPLETON V. UKIAH This item is also on the closed session portion of the agenda. After consulting with the City Attorney in closed session, the City Council should consider this matter in open session, if it wants to approve the settlement as currently proposed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consult with City Attorney in closed session and further consider the matter in open session, if the City Council wants to take action. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A David J. Rapport, City Attorney David J. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager, John Williams, Police Chief, Mike McCann, Finance Director N/A APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager