HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-26 EIR results cert Orr Creek and Orchard AveRESOLU'FZON NO. 2005-26 RESOLUTZON OF THE CZTY COUNCI'L OF THE CZTY OF UK]AH MAKZNG FZNDI'NGS RESOURCES CODE ("PRC") CALI'FORNI'A ENVI'RONMENTAL GUTDELTNES SECTZON :1.509:/. OVERRTDTNG CONSZDERA'I'ZON PURSUANT TO PUBLTC SECTZON 21081. AND (~UALZTY ACT ("CE(~A") AND A STATEMENT OF TN ACCORDANCE WTFH PRC §21.081.(b) AND GUZDELTNES §1.5093 TN CONNECTZON WTFH THE DECTSTON TO CERTZFY AN ENVZRONMENTAL TMPACT REPORT AND APPROVE THE ORR CREEK BRZDGE AND ORCHARD AVENUE EXTENSTON PRO3ECT WHEREAS: 1. The City Council has certified as adequate and complete an Environmental Impact Report ("ETR") for proposed roadway improvements and the extension of Orchard Avenue and the construction of a bridge over Orr Creek. The EIR consists of a Draft Environmental Tmpact Report, dated October 2002, ("DETR"), a Final Environmental Tmpact Report, including a response to comments, dated December 2002, ("FETR'9, and an ETR Addendum, dated November 2004, ("Addendum'9; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. The project includes the extension of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Brush Street, and the construction of a 62-foot wide, 95-foot long bridge over Orr Creek ("the Project"). The roadway would be striped; and 3. The ETR has identified significant environmental impacts of the Project; and 4. The ETR has determined that all of the project specific adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels; and 5. The Final ETR has found that one adverse environmental impact from the growth the project may induce within the Study Area that cannot be mitigated to a level considered insignificant. Study Area as used in this Resolution is defined as the "Brush Street Triangle'; an area bordered by U.S. Highway 101 on the east and north, Orr Creek on the South, and the NWP railroad tracks on the west; and Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution 3anuary 5, 2005 6. As stated below, the City Council has made the findings and the statement of overriding considerations required, where, as here, a project has an adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and 7. The City hereby undertakes a legally binding commitment to comply with the mitigation measures under the City's control, which are incorporated into the Project; and 8. The City Council has determined to approve the Project; and 9. The City Council has based its decision on the record which includes those items identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e), including, but not limited to, the El:R, including the appendices to the El:R, the E]:R Addendum, and the staff report; and 10. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, including the Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension project file, is maintained in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Development, as well as the office of the Public Works Director/City Engineer, Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, as the custodians of the record, and is available for public inspection upon request of the Director of Planning and Community Development, the Public Works Director/City Engineer or their designee; and 11. PRC section 21081 and CEQA Guideline section 15091 provide that the City shall not approve or carry out a project for which an ETR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings; and 12. PRC section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline section 15093 require a Statement of Overriding Considerations for a project that will have any unmitigated adverse environmental impacts; NOW~ THEREFORE, BE ~ RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Ukiah finds as follows. 1. The E]:R was prepared and made available for public review and comment in full compliance with the procedures set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 2. The EIR was considered by the City Council at public meetings on December 15, 2004 and January 5, 2005. 3. The City Council has considered all documents submitted during the public comment period for the EIR and all testimony presented during its meetings as well as the EIR, the Staff Reports, dated December 15, 2004 and January 5, 2005, and the Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension File. The Staff Reports are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed this resolution and the EIR. 4. The Project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR at pp. 7-8. This description is incorporated herein by reference. 5. The EIR evaluated the impacts of the Project itself as well as its impacts in combination with impacts from past, present and probable future projects. Those impacts, both individual and cumulative, as well as growth-inducing impacts, along with recommended mitigation measures and suggested conditions, are summarized in the Impact and Mitigation Summary Table in the DEIR pp. 27-52. 6. Measures designed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project as identified in the EIR are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The measures constitute binding commitments of the City, if the Project is approved by responsible agencies upon acceptable conditions and undertaken by the City and those measures shall be incorporated into the Project and monitored in accordance with the Plan. 7. Geology. Project Specific Impacts: The E]:R determined that the project, if improperly constructed, could cause landsliding and soil erosion, could fail in the event of an earthquake, and could fail due to overall soil constraints. The E]:R proposes that the City prepare and implement a comprehensive erosion control plan to ensure no significant soil erosion. The EIR also proposes that the final bridge Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 design include a hydrologic study to determine if additional rock armoring of the north stream bank will be required to protect the bridge abutment. ]:t also proposes that the City enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the State Department of Fish and Game, as required by State Law. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of potential landslides and soil erosion, project failure in the event of an earthquake, and potential failure due to overall soil constraints. Growth-]:nducinq l;mpacts: The E[R determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area could be subject to damage from earthquakes; that site soils could pose constraints to future development; and construction of improvements could cause soil erosion. The document proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated a Road ]:mprovement and Land Use Agreement (''Land Use Agreement'~ with the County that requires the County to adopt an ordinance requiring discretionary review of such projects. The Land Use Agreement partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA and to comply with CEQA in reviewing and approving them. 8. Hydrology. Project Specific l;mpacts: The E~[R determined that runoff from the new street (Orchard Avenue extension) would transport pollutants to Orr Creek. The EIR proposes that a stormwater interceptor Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary S, 2005 be constructed to intercept runoff from pavement before it enters Orr Creek. The stormwater interceptor shall be of a type and design to be approved by all applicable State and Federal agencies. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. Under the Land Use Agreement, the City will construct these improvements in the unincorporated area which will allow the City to comply with these requirements. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of potential pollution from the new street being transported into Orr Creek. Growth-Tnducing Tmpacts: The ETR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would be located in the 100-year floodplain; that construction of new buildings and roads would increase flooding; and that runoff from paved areas and roofs would transport pollutants to Orr Creek. The document proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the ETR will provide guidance to the County of IVlendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 9. Wildlife and Vegetation. Project Specific Tmpacts: The ETR determined that construction of the project improvements could adversely affect water quality, which could lead to impacts on wildlife and its habitat along Orr Creek. To offset this impact, the ETR proposes that the City, in consultation with applicable agencies, identify and prioritize specific stream enhancement projects between Highway 101 and Orr Street. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 The EIR suggests that the enhancement projects could be funded by future development in the Study Area with the establishment of an impact fee program pursuant to AB1600, Government Code Section 66000. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect of project construction on wildlife and vegetation. Growth-~Inducinq ~Impacts: The EIR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area could result in impacts to Orr Creek and its riparian vegetation that could eliminate wildlife habitat. :It also determined that future development could affect wetlands. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the erosion control measures described for the project specific impacts to be applied to all future development, not allowing development within 100-feet of the top of the bank of Orr Creek, landscaping the 100-foot "buffer zone" with native plant species, ensuring that lighting does not cast glare on the riparian "buffer zone", requiring future development to contribute financially to creek restoration projects, protecting the valley oak trees in the Study Area, incorporating an open space plan for the Study Area that establishes open space areas along the drainages and creek, and requiring future project sites to be surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 10. Cultural Resources. Project Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that the bridge and street improvement project could potentially damage cultural resources. To address this potentially significant impact, the EIR proposes that if cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or project construction, all work shall be halted immediately, and the City shall engage the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and to develop a precise mitigation program, if necessary. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that this mitigation measure will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect on cultural resources. Growth-l~nducing Impacts: The EIR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area could result in potentially significant adverse impacts on cultural resources. To mitigate this growth-inducing impact, the EIR proposes that as part of the subsequent environmental review for future development, the IVlendocino County Archaeological Commission shall review the project site to determine whether there is a possibility of archaeological resources being present. The Commission shall determine whether field surveys are warranted and required. If such a survey is required, then the survey shall be conducted and recommendations shall be made for recording and preserving artifacts. Future development would then be planned and constructed consistent with the recommendations of the archaeologist. The EIR further proposes that the archaeological surveys and work be done as part of a comprehensive planning process for the Study Area. However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution _lanuary 5, 2005 projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. !1. Air (~uality. Project Specific Tmpacts: The ETR determined that the construction of the bridge and street improvements would generate significant amounts of dust (particulate matter), which would degrade air quality. To address this potentially significant impact, the ETR proposes that control measures be incorporated into the project that would reduce the impact to a level that is considered less than significant. These measures include watering all active construction areas twice daily, covering all soil hauling trucks, pave, water and/or apply non-toxic soil binders to unpaved roadway areas and exposed soil stockpile areas, sweep all appropriate areas daily, limit traffic speeds on any unpaved surfaces, and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as practical. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effect on air quality. Growth-Tnducinq Tmpacts: The EIR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would generate potentially significant amounts of particulate matter (dust) and substantial amounts of other air pollutants that could cause both health and nuisance impacts. The ETR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include controlling the dust resulting from site preparation and construction activities in the same fashion as described for project specific impacts above. Tt also suggests that reasonable and feasible measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from automobiles be imposed on future development in the Study Area. These measures include transportation management and improvements, provision of transit services, construction of transit facilities, coordination of development design with transit facilities, allowance for and encouragement of mixed land uses, and provision of bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 However, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 12. Noise. Project Specific Impacts: The EIR determined that the construction of the project would cause potentially significant adverse noise impacts in the area. To reduce the noise impacts to levels considered less than significant, the EIR proposes a number of reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. These measures include limiting noise-generating construction equipment to certain days and times, properly muffling and maintaining all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines, locating any stationary noise-generating equipment as far as practical from nearby residences, and notifying all neighboring property owners within 500-feet of the construction site of the construction schedule. The City Council commits to these mitigation measures. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to insignificance the adverse environmental effects on noise. Growth-Inducinq Impacts: The EIR determined that future construction activities in the unincorporated Study Area would generate potentially significant amounts of noise that would adversely impact neighboring residential areas. It also concluded that future development would increase noise levels on Orchard Avenue and Brush Street to potentially significant levels, which would adversely impact residents living along the west side of Orchard Avenue between Clara Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary S, 200S Avenue and Orr Creek. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the same mitigation measures described for project specific impacts above, as well as reducing the speed limit near residences, utilizing rubberized or open-grade asphalt, and constructing a sound barrier on the west side of Orchard Avenue south from the bridge maintenance ramp to Ford Street. This sound barrier could be an earthen berm, a wall, or a combination of the two. These potentially significant adverse noise impacts would occur within the City Limits. Therefore, the City Council commits to the proposed mitigation measures, if cooperation from the land owner along the west side of Orchard Avenue can be attained. However, for noise impacts within the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 13. Fire Protection. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The EIR concludes that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would increase the calls for service for the Ukiah Valley Fire District. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include requiring sprinkler systems to be installed in all new buildings, new hydrant construction, the extension of water mains with adequate fire flow, adherence to State law for the storage and use of hazardous materials, and requiring project applicants to pay pro rata Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 10 shares of the expenses of adding new equipment/personnel to serve the project. The document also suggests that the County adopt mitigation fees for the Fire District, and that if the City decides to annex Study Area properties, it should confer with the UVFD to determine revenue-sharing procedures to minimize fiscal effects on the UVFD. The ETR notes that a 2-acre parcel in the Study Area (southeast corner) is situated within the City limits, and that the above mitigation measures, excluding County adoption of mitigation fees, should be imposed on new development in this area. For the 2-acre property within the Study Area that is situated in the City limits, the City Council commits to the applicable mitigation measures contained in the ETR, and concludes that they will eliminate or reduce identified adverse impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 14. Police Protection. Growth-:[nducinq ]:mpacts: Future buildout in the unincorporated Study Area would significantly increase the demand for police response from the County Sheriff's Department. The E]:R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include requiring that development permit applications to be referred to the Sheriff's Department, who would establish final conditions regarding security, lighting, roadway access, building and parking lot security, signing, addressing, and other measures to ensure safety Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 standards. It also suggests that as the County revises its General Plan, it consider the adoption of a Police Service Mitigation Fee for new development. For the small 2-acre piece of property in the southeast corner of the Study Area or if the City annexes property in the Study Area, the EIR proposes that development permit applications shall be referred to the City Police Department for the same review as described for the County Sheriff's Department above. It also proposes that in this case, the City Police Department monitor the number of calls for assistance in this area, and if the calls begin to affect the ability of the Department to provide satisfactory service, additional police officers must be hired. The City commits to these mitigation measures, and concludes that they will eliminate or reduce identified adverse impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 15. Sewage Disposal. Growth-Tnducing Tmpacts: The EIR concludes that future development in the Study Area, including the recently proposed Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation ("RCHDC'~ project, could generate approximately 67,500 gallons of wastewater per day. This could potentially have an adverse impact on the wastewater treatment plant. The ETR proposes to mitigate this potentially significant adverse environmental impact by requiring the Sanitation District or City (if proposed Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 12 development is in the City limits) to confirm that the plant has the capacity to serve each proposed project prior to approval of any future development proposals. It also requires that: (1) future development include water conservation fixtures, (2) sewage collectors be sized and constructed per District or City requirements, (3) all proposed development pay the prevailing connections fees, (4) all heavy commercial uses be required to meet pre-treatment requirements, and (4) no future hook-ups be approved unless there is adequate treatment and disposal capacity. As these mitigation measures apply to the City, the City Council commits to implementing and monitoring them, and concludes that they will eliminate or reduce the potentially significant impacts to levels considered less than significant. For mitigation measures in the unincorporated Study Area, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 16. Public Water. Growth-Inducinq Impacts: Future development of the Study Area would require approximately 199,900 gallons of water per day. The EIR concludes that this represents a potentially significant adverse impact on the Millview County Water District, which may not have the capacity to serve the build-out of the area. The EIR also concludes that future development in the Study Area would require the extension of water mains throughout the Study Area. This also represents a potentially significant adverse impact. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 13 impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include allowing future development only if an adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed projects, and installing a new water main of 10 to 12 inches in diameter to the north end of the Study Area. The ETR proposes that each applicant be required to pay its fair share of water system improvements required to serve its property. ~If public water is requested of the City for development in the unincorporated Study Area, the City shall not commit to serve the development unless it has adequate water supply to do so. The City commits to this mitigation measure, and concludes that it will reduce, but not necessarily to insignificance, this potentially significant impact. To the extent that mitigation of these impacts requires action by Mendocino County or Millview County Water District, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (:1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate these impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section :15:1264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth- inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. :17. Schools. Growth-Inducinq Impacts: The EIR notes that over the past five years, school enrollment has declined approximately 10%. It notes that while some of the local schools have some capacity remaining, others are currently at capacity levels. The EIR concludes that build-out of the Study Area would have a potentially significant adverse impact on the Ukiah Unified School District be adding approximately 279 students. The EIR indicates that this impact would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant by future developers paying the required developer mitigation fees established and collected by the School District. It also suggests that the School District monitor Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 student enrollment, and if enrollment exceeds capacity, the District should request that the governing governmental agency establish additional school mitigation fees, to the degree allowed by State law. To the extent that mitigation of these impacts within the unincorporated Study Area requires action by Ukiah Unified School District or Mendocino County, the project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the ETR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino and Ukiah Unified School District in mitigating these impacts. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 18. Solid Waste. Growth-Tnducinq Impacts: The EIR determined that future development in the unincorporated Study Area would generate a substantial amount of solid waste that is considered a potentially significant adverse impact on solid waste collection and processing services. To mitigate this impact, the ETR proposes to require all businesses to recycle per the requirements of AB 939, and that this recycling program be formalized in a recycling statement that is approved by the County and/or the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority. Tt also proposes that future developers be required to recycle scrap timber and metal products, wherever feasible, and that future buildings be insulated with recycled material, if feasible. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 3_5 limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of IVlendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 19. Energy Use. Growth-Inducing Impacts: The EIR concludes that the operation of future businesses would require the use of substantial amounts of energy that would represent a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. The EI~R proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include enforcing the energy efficiency standards contained in the California State Building Code, Title 24 of the Code of Regulations on all future development in the Study Area. [t also proposes that all future buildings be heated with "clean air" heat sources, that electrical transmission lines and gas lines be extended through the Study Area per PG&E requirements, and that solar access be protected for all future development. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the E]:R will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 20. Recreation. Growth-Inducinq Impacts: Future development in the Study Area will substantially increase the demand for parks and recreation facilities, and the EIR concludes that this represents a potentially significant adverse impact on local parks and recreation facilities. The EIR proposes that the mitigation measure (Aesthetics)suggesting that a coordinated site development plan or specific plan be required for the Study Area to include provisions for public parks and trails. It suggests further that the public parks and trails could be incorporated into the site development or specific plan component for open space recommended in the discussion of Aesthetics below. The EIR proposes a series of mitigation measures to off-set these impacts to levels considered less than significant. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 21. Land Use. Growth-Tnducing Tmpacts: The FTR concludes that the future development of the Study Area could be inconsistent with the Ukiah Valley Area Plan because the Plan calls for all future development to include open space, a stream access plan, have an attractive US Highway 101 viewshed, etc. To mitigate this potentially significant adverse land use and aesthetic impact, the ETR suggests that a Specific Plan be prepared for the Study Area prior to allowing new development. On 3anuary 15, 2005, the City Council adopted alternative language for this mitigation: Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 Prior to approving any new development in the Study Area, the County or City (depending on which entity has jurisdiction) shall require the development and approval of a comprehensive planning document for the entire area. Later under the same mitigation measure, the Council added: This comprehensive planning document should be prepared for and adopted by the County (or the City if the area is annexed to the City) prior to approving new development. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (1) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the ETR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 22. Aesthetics. Growth-]:nducing ]:mpacts.' The E]:R determined that future development of the approximate 95-acre unincorporated Study Area would substantially alter views in the area, and that this represented a potentially significant adverse impact. To mitigate this impact, the E]:R suggested that a site development or specific plan be developed and approved before any new development occurs. The City Council certified the E]:R with the mitigation measure described in the discussion of Land Use above. Project approval does not require the City to mitigate these impacts, because (!) CEQA requires a discussion, but not the mitigation of growth-inducing impacts and (2) even if the City were required to mitigate these growth-inducing impacts, these Study Area properties are outside the City Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution ~_ ~3 January 5, 2005 limits, and the City lacks the legal authority to mitigate impacts in the unincorporated area. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 151264(a)(5).) The mitigation measures discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of IVlendocino in mitigating these impacts, when it evaluates projects proposed for that area. The City has negotiated the Land Use Agreement with the County which partially mitigates these growth-inducing impacts by requiring the County to evaluate them in compliance with CEQA. 23. Traffic and Circulation. Growth-Inducinq Impacts: The EIR concluded that there would be potentially significant adverse impacts to traffic and circulation resulting from the extension of Orchard Avenue to Brush Street and up to Ford Road, and from Study Area build-out. The intersections that would be impacted are North State Street/U.S. 10! Northbound Ramps; North State Street/Low Gap Road-Brush Street, East Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue, East Perkins Street/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps, East Perkins Street/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps-Pomeroy Avenue, Gobbi Street/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps, Orchard Avenue/Ford Street, North State Street/Ford Street, Orchard Avenue/Clara Avenue, Orchard Avenue/Gobbi Street, and the East Perkins Street Corridor (Orchard Avenue to U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps). The EIR recommends a series of mitigation measures designed to reduce the impacts at these intersections to levels considered less than significant. These mitigation measures are listed on pages 38-42 of the Impact and M/t/gat/on Summary Tab/e contained in the DEIR, and are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts at these intersections to levels considered less than significant. The EIR also concluded that future development in the Study Area will substantially increase the demand for alternative means of transportation. Mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include the construction of bike lanes, routes, and sidewalks, requiring bicycle parking facilities with new Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 19 development, and the development of bus stops, bus turn-outs, and new transit routes. The E];R also concludes that future development in the Study Area would require wider curb-to-curb Study Area roadways, and that this represented a potentially significant adverse impact. The E1~R proposes mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. These mitigation measures include reserving right-of-way along Orchard Avenue and Brush Street, requiring shared driveways where feasible, and the development of a monitoring program as build-out occurs to determine if fewer improvements would actually be appropriate. The Road :improvement and Land Use Agreement (Exhibit B) requires IVlendocino County and the City to consider the E:IR as well as the Mendocino County Council of Governments study of traffic impacts in the Study Area in devising traffic mitigations for development in the Study Area. The Road :Improvement and Land Use Agreement requires the County and the City to evaluate and mitigate the individual and cumulative traffic impacts of each project approved for development in the Study Area and to make each project pay its proportional share of the cost of these mitigations. The Road :Improvement and Land Use Agreement imposes binding legal obligations on the City and the County to mitigate these impacts. The City Council finds that the implementation of the Land Use Agreement will mitigate adverse traffic impacts to a level that is not considered significant. FZNDTNGS REGARDTNG UNMZ'I'TGATED ADVERSE TMPACT The E:IR has identified one significant growth-inducing impact that cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided with build-out of the Study Area. 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. This impact does not result from the project itself but rather from the growth-inducing impacts of the project. While the City Council may not be required to mitigate growth-inducing impacts, Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary S, 2005 2O it nevertheless elects to make the finding required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of Regulations ("CCR'~ Sections 15091 that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations.., make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.' (§15091(a)(3).) For the following reasons, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the EIR. A. The Project Objectives. The primary objectives of the proposed project, as explained initially in the Negative Declaration for the K-Mart Project, see Resolution No. 94-47, on file with the City Planning Department, are to provide a north-south arterial street alternative to State Street, which will improve City-wide traffic circulation, and to reduce traffic through nearby residential neighborhoods along Ford Street and Clara Avenue. The project will also provide a southern access to the Study Area which will facilitate traffic flow as that area develops. B. Generally, Project Alternatives are Unavailable and Infeasible, The traffic impact that cannot be mitigated results from development within the Study Area; not from the construction of the bridge. Any bridge and extension of Orchard Avenue that facilitates development within the Study Area will have the same growth-inducing impacts. Accordingly, there are no project alternatives that would avoid or render less significant the one unmitigated traffic impact from that development. Only limitations on the development itself could reduce this traffic impact. Since this development will take place within the unincorporated area, it is not legally feasible for the City to impose such limitations. C. Infeasibility of Project Alternatives Discussed in EIR. The following social, economic, legal, technological, and other considerations make the three alternatives identified in the ETR infeasible. The three alternatives are: 1) no project alternative; 2) alternative location; and 3) free-span bridge. Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 21 :1.. No Project Alternative. The no project alternative is not feasible, because it would not achieve any of the project objectives, including the reduction of existing traffic congestion problems (See DETR p. 178). Moreover, none of the project specific impacts is significant and adverse affcer mitigation. 2. Alternative Location. Because the bridge and roadway extension are proposed as an "enhancement" for a previously approved project in the City, there is no alternative location where these improvements could be made. There would not be traffic congestion relief south of the Study Area if the bridge and roadway improvements were constructed elsewhere. Thus, an alternative location alternative is not feasible for the specific improvements proposed. There is also no alternative location for constructing a roadway extension into the area. Orchard Avenue is the logical road to be extended, and is so recommended in the Ukiah General Plan. Moving the bridge to the east or the west would not reduce or render less significant the unmitigated traffic impact. Moreover, the road extension cannot be moved to the east of the proposed location, because Highway 101 is about 300-feet away. Tt cannot be moved to the west, because of existing residential development to the west of the proposed location. 3. Free-Span Bridge. This alternative would include a free-span bridge at the site. According to the calculations prepared by the project engineer, a 95-foot long free-span bridge would need to be supported by girders as deep as four-feet. Because the bottom of the bridge must be one-foot above the 100-year flood elevation, the bottom of the free-span bridge with four-foot deep supports would need to be at least 7.3 feet above the existing ground surface at the abutment locations. This alternative would have no affect on the unmitigated traffic impact. Tt would avoid driving of pile bents within the stream channel, but the adverse environmental impacts of constructing these pile bents can be reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures already included in the proposed project and the ETR. The alternative would have slightly greater Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 potential erosion and visual impacts. There is no substantial environmental advantage to this alternative, and it is not considered environmentally superior to the project as proposed. The City Council finds that the proposed project represents the environmentally superior alternative. STATEMENT OF OVERRZDI'NG CONSTDERATZONS For the reasons as further stated below, the City Council finds that the economic, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental risk arising upon build-out within the Study Area of insufficient vehicular storage capacity on East Perkins Street between Orchard Avenue and the Southbound Highway 101 ramps to accommodate eastbound traffic. The project will reduce existing traffic impacts on Ford and Clara Streets within the adjacent residential area known as the "Wagonsellers' Addition." It will provide an alternative to the State Street for north and south bound traffic within the City, thereby improving traffic conditions on State Street. In fact, the development of that alternative route for traffic is identified as a goal in the City of Ukiah General Plan, adopted on December 6, 1995 ("GP'~), and could lead to an extension of Orchard Avenue to Ford Road with additional long term benefits for traffic circulation in the City. (See GP, p. V.5.30-38.) In addition, Ford and Orr Streets as well as Brush Street already provide access to the Study Area, allowing for some development in the Study Area without the construction of the project. The project will provide an alternative access to the Study Area that will avoid or lessen adverse traffic impacts on Orr and Ford Streets within the Wagonsellers Addition. At the same time, the project will provide superior traffic circulation within the Study Area as it develops. These benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse traffic impact on East Perkins Street. The Study Area could build out, if the project were not constructed, creating the same traffic impact on Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution .lanuary 5, 2005 23 East Perkins Street with no compensating project benefits. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku Councilmember Baldwin None None ATTEST: ~k Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension Environmental Impact Report City Council Resolution January 5, 2005 24 EXH]~B]~T A Resolution No. ~::? ~=~--~ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension .Project The following table lists all the mitigation measures recommended in the Orr Creek' Brfdge and Orchard Avenue Extension Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The table lists each mitigation measure and describes when the mitigation measures must be completed, who is responsible for implementing the measure, and which City department or other governmental entity is responsible for ensuring compliance. Many of the mitigation measures included in the EIR address future growth-induced impacts from future development in the Study Area. Because ali of the Study Area other than two acres is in the jurisdiction of the County of Mendocino, the City cannot require that these EIR-recommended mitigation measures be implemented. The table explains which mitigation measures would be at the County's discretion to require. o~ Attachment LL~ O> --r- Attachment ITl ,.~ 0 © Affachment # e-~ ~ ~ _q. ~ o (n-~D 0 W _~ ~ ~. o .~ 3> ~.~ - ~ ~o~~- ~=, ,~ ~ o ~ ~ o =~-' o= o .... o=~.~ ~ g~ ~< ~ ~ o~ ~o ~ ~ ~-- ~o o · ' ~ ,. g~ ~'g~ o ~_ ~ ~o -.o ~ o ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -,~2 ~ ~-D .... m ~ m o < o < o ~ ~ ~ 5' ~ ~ 5'0 ~ ~ ~ o o o 8 -- _ O~ 0 0 0 Attachment # ,~ ~ · ~r _. o~3~ o -.m ~ ~' ~0~ .... ~ ..... m m~_.~ ~ 0m m 05' ~.~ o ~'~o ~" ~ .- ~.. j j ~'.. - ~n -- ~~= o - .... om o o o o Attachment # Affachment # ~.~ mo zz -1(/3 0 Attachment # Attachment # Attachment # 0 ~. -.,. cl. Attachment # ~0 m Cl. --,. Cl. ~ t~ w o~ m ~ ~ o o. ~m o= --_ ~ g ~=.-- m . m o o ~ 3go ~o c U~ ~0~~ - ~ m~ g'g! ~o~gg~ = o~ g a'~9.:go g o ~ ~o o ~ ~ ~o o ~ · ° · E g o o ~ o~ o 0 Attachment # Attachment # iil~' I,i~ O~ =~ ~ = o = m ~ ~_= o o =.~ ~; = ~! w ~ o o o_,~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~.--~,'= ~-.o C~ ge. ~ ~ ~5' oo-, ~=~ o ........ ~ ,. ~ >~8~ ~ >- ~ 0 - O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ 0 o o o o o o o o o o --' 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~' = o ~R o 5 g o ~ o =o = o ~ ..... fi fi 2 g g g g ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ o o o -- _ _ _ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 Attachment # Attachment # Attachment _. a.c, chment # /i~' I; 0 z 0 z _ © 0 0 0 Attachment # 0 EXHIBIT B Resolution No.~ ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND LAND USE AGREEMENT - 8/25/04 This Agreement is made and entered on 2004 ("Effective Date"), in Ukiah, California, by and between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law municipal corporation, and the County of Mendocino ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of California. RECITALS: 1. The City has under review the construction of certain improvements which will consist of constructing a bridge over Orrs Creek and extending Orchard Avenue to Brush Street. These improvements are more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference ("Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements"). 2. The City has prepared a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report ("RDEIR"), dated October 2002, for the Orrs Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") which has determined that the construction of the Orrs Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension will promote commercial development in an unincorporated area ("Brush Street triangle"), depicted and described in the attached Exhibit B which is incorporated herein by this reference. 3. According to the RDEIR, commercial development within the Brush Street triangle will have adverse impacts on traffic and other adverse environmental impacts within the incorporated limits of the City of Ukiah. 4. Both parties also acknowledge that potential commercial development outside the Brush Street triangle, including within the City of Ukiah, may have adverse traffic impacts within the Brush Street triangle. 5. Under its current zoning designation and the applicable provisions of the Mendocino County zoning ordinance, some commercial and industrial development in the Brush Street triangle can be constructed on existing parcels subject only to obtaining building permits from the County. No discretionary permits, such as use or site development permits, are required. As a consequence, unless the County imposes additional land use regulations in the Brush Street triangle, property owners may construct some commercial and industrial development with potentially adverse environmental impacts within the incorporated limits of the City without adequate means currently in place to assess or mitigate those impacts. 6. The City takes the position that under the requirements of CEQA it cannot certify the RDEIR and undertake the construction of the Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements, unless it can find that cumulative adverse environmental impacts within the City of Ukiah from construction of the Orr Creek Bridge, including development in the Brush Street triangle, as identified in the RDEIR or as may be identified in future evaluations of specific projects, are reduced to the point below the threshold of significance through changes to the projects or the adoption of enforceable conditions to the approval of those projects. Attachment 7. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §1810, the County has no objection to the City acquiring right of way and constructing the Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements partially within the unincorporated area. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Consent to Construction of Improvements.. The County hereby consents to the construction of those Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements which will be within the unincorporated areas of the County and within any right of way acquired for the extension of Orchard Avenue or for the construction of the Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements, lying north of the Ukiah City limits. 2. Dedication to the County.. The City shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the County the constructed improvements north of the north bridge abutment and all acquired rights of way north of the north bridge abutment not already owned by the County which are part of the extension of Orchard Avenue within the unincorporated area. The County shall accept the rights of way and improvements as part of the County Maintained Road System and shall assume maintenance responsibility for the Orchard Avenue Road Improvements located outside City limits, north of the north bridge abutment. That acceptance shall occur within sixty (60) days after the improvements have been completed in compliance with the plans and specifications for their construction. 3. Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Replacement of Orchard Avenue Bridge. A long as the Orchard Avenue Bridge remains within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the City and the County, the expense of maintenance of the bridge shall be borne equally by the City and the County. Maintenance of the bridge shall be the responsibility of the City and shall occur on an as needed basis. Annually, after completion of the bridge, the City shall submit an invoice to the County setting forth the actual expenditure for the maintenance of the bridge for the previous twelve (12) months, indicating County's share as one-half the expenditure amount. The County shall pay the invoice within sixty (60) days of its submission. As long as the bridge remains within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the City and the County, the cost of rehabilitation and replacement of the bridge shall be borne equally by the City and the County. If the Brush Street triangle, or any portion contiguous to the bridge, is annexed into the City, the Orchard Avenue Bridge shall also be annexed and all future maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs shall be borne entirely by the City; likewise, if the entire bridge is annexed into the County, all future maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs shall be borne entirely by the County. 4. Construction of improvements. The City shall construct the Orchard Avenue Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension in accordance with the construction schedule set forth in the contract documents for the construction of these improvements, unless the time for completion is extended with the approval of the City or as a result of the contractor's performance. Affachment # 5. Future County land use approvals. Prior to issuing any building permit for construction within the Brush Street triangle, the County agrees to adopt and apply to each development proposal in the Brush Street triangle land use regulations that: (1) require discretionary approval by the County of any commercial development or other development with potentially significant adverse envirom-nental impacts (either individually or cumulatively) within the City ofUkiah ("a Project") and to evaluate such impacts in accordance with the requirements of CEQA prior to approving any such Project; and (2) adopts design principles contained in Pages 18 through 22 (Design Guidelines-Commercial Development Projects Outside the Downtown Design District) of the Commercial Development Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit C. The discretionary approval by the County for commercial developments shall, at a minimum, include findings as set forth in Exhibit D. Any such discretionary approval shall provide the County with sufficient authority to impose conditions or take other actions to adequately mitigate any adverse environmental impacts identified during the evaluation of the Project in compliance with CEQA. 6. Process by which County adopts land use approvals. The County will proceed to amend its zoning ordinance providing discretionary approval authority as described in paragraph 5 of this Agreement. Within 90 days of receipt by the City of the land use regulations adopted by the County pursuant to this paragraph 6 and upon the City's satisfaction therewith, the City shall take final action on the Revised Draft EIR for the Orchard Avenue Bridge Improvements. Within 45 days of its receipt of said land use changes, the City shall notify the County in writing as to whether or not it is satisfied that those changes comply with the requirements of this Agreement. If the City is not satisfied with the amended land use regulations, the notice shall include the reasons for the City's dissatisfaction. 7. Mitigations. 7.1 The parties acknowledge that the Mendocino Council of Governments ("MCOG"), at their request, commissioned a technical study, entitled Brush Street Triangle Transportation Study (W-trans, May 30, 2003) which can be used as decreed appropriate by the parties to develop for adoption by the County and the City resolutions imposing off-site capital improvement fees sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts from development within the "MCOG study area," which includes the Brush Street Triangle Development Area, as well as other development areas, all as depicted and described on pages 1-5 and 16 of the MCOG Study, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference. The County and the City shall endeavor to adopt off-site capital improvement fees as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act to fund capital improvements in the City and the County necessary to adequately fund mitigations for traffic impacts from developments that will generate additional traffic within the MCOG study area. This Agreement does not obligate either the City or the County to accept or use the study in the form approved by MCOG. Each jurisdiction shall have discretion to adopt a study that it determines fairly and adequately apportions among affected parcels of land the cost of constructing improvements to adequately mitigate off-site adverse environmental Attachment# ~5 impacts of new development within the MCOG study area, but the parties shall endeavor to coordinate their studies and to make them compatible. 7.2. In evaluating the environmental impacts ora project that will generate additional traffic within the MCOG study area (as defined in paragraph 7.1 above), the County and the City shall consider the EIR certified by the City for Orchard Avenue Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension and shall, in compliance with CEQA, mitigate project-related traffic impacts within the City as well as in the unincorporated area, comprising the MCOG study area. In evaluating the impacts of any individual sucti projects within the MCOG study area, the County and the City shall include an evaluation of the cumulative impacts fi.om all potential new development that may generate additional traffic within that area. Neither the City nor the County shall rely on its lack of jurisdiction within the other jurisdiction to find that it is infeasible to mitigate an adverse environmental impact in the other jurisdiction. The County and the City shall take steps to fund improvements in the other jurisdiction deemed necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts from full development of projects that will generate additional traffic within the entire MCOG study area. Subject to Section 7.3, below, neither the County nor the City shall approve any project that will generate additional traffic within the MCOG study area, unless such steps have been taken to fund that project's proportionate share of the costs to mitigate such environmental impacts. The amount contributed by or on behalf of such projects shall satisfy the proportionality requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Cal. Gov't Code {}66000 et seq.). 7.3 The MCOG Study identifies a series of recommended mitigations to address cumulative traffic impacts of development within the MCOG study area. The parties agree that these mitigations should be prioritized with some performed before others, and that some of the proposed mitigations may require revision or modification based on the infeasibility of the mitigations or development ora better alternative. The parties also recognize that development in the portions of the MCOG study area located within the City and within the unincorporated area of the County is likely to take place at different rates. The parties shall determine a schedule tied to increased levels of traffic for constructing the recommended traffic mitigations or any agreed upon modifications of such mitigations. Those mitigations, including any agreed upon modifications, shall either (1) be constructed when called for under the agreed upon schedule, or (2) the project shall not be approved, if sufficient funding is not available to construct the mitigations as scheduled; or, the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the development triggering the need for the mitigations has occurred may proportionally fund the shortfall with a right of reimbursement from the fees paid by future developments; or, the jurisdiction may require a given project, in lieu of paying its full share of each mitigation identified in the MCOG study (or other study referred to in paragraph 7.1), to pay a higher proportional share of a specific mitigation, provided that each project pays its proportional share of the total mitigation costs identified in the MCOG study or other study under paragraph 71. 7.4 The foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude either the City or the County from adopting a statement of overriding consideration for specific projects 4 Af/achrnent# ~~~ that the City or County approves prior to the adoption of off-site capital improvement tees under the Mitigation Fee Act for projects within the MCOG study area; provided, however, that the City or the County complies with its obligations under Section 7.3, above and further provided that each project pays its proportional share of the mitigation costs identified in the MCOG study or other study under paragraph 7.1. 8. Modifications. City or County may, from time to time, request changes in the terms of this Agreement. Such changes, which are mutually agreed upon by and between City and the County, and approved by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. 9. Assignment. City and County shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the other party. 10. Application of Laws. The parties hereby agree that all applicable Federal, State and local rules, regulations and guidelines not written into this Agreement shall hereby apply to the parties' performance under this Agreement. 1 1. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any legal action concerning the agreement must be filcd and litigated in the proper court in Mendocino County. 12. Attorneys fees. In any action to enforce the provisions of this Agreement the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, its reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to its costs of suit. 13. Severability. If any provision of the Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 14. Integration. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by both of the parties. 15. Waiver. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 16. Notice. Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under this Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United Sates mail as certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: Attachment # COUNTY UKIAH County of Mendocino c/o: County Administrator County Administration Center 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA. 95482 City of Ukiah c/o: City Manager Civic Center 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 17. Paragraph headings. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this Agreement. 18. Duplicate originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or rnore duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement betxveen the parties. 19. No third part)' beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of City and County and confers no rights or benefits on any persons or entities not a signatory to this Agreement. No third party beneficiaries are intended or established by this Agreement. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. CITY OF UKIAH By. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney COUNTY OF MENDOCINO By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Attachment # ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Approved as to form: County Counsel Attachment # EXHIBIT A Road !mpFovemen! and Land Use Agreement ORCHARD AVENUE BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 1-he C¢'y of Ul.'Jah ~s proposing to r_,orLsb'~ a r~y im~vemenl proje~ ~Js proje~ ~ pro~ as O~ Avenue lo ~ ~ of ~ S~ ~ea. ~ ~,~T p~e~ resu~ in ~a~c ~vehng ~rough r~idenbal areas no~ and ~ of ~ ~ ,Store. ~e C~ ag~ to ~nv~gate ~e ~ssJbil~ of ~n~ding ~ ~enUy pro,sod proj~ as s m~ of allevi~ng ~ose ka~c effeds. ~s EIR m ~ ~lltm~l of ~e C~s ~enbor, ~a~ ~pa~oj~ ~e pro~d proje~mprovements (as sho~ on F~gures 4 a~ 5) ~ndude the 1 ~end Orchard Avenue to B~sh SL'~ from ~ ~ent no.hem te~inus at Ford Strut Improve Orchard Avenue Vavellan~ and d~m shoulde~ pJus adequate ta~r to ~e bridge Cons~ a~ro~mate~ 95 f~t long It ~ould have a loml ~ of 62 feet to aNow four Vavel lan~ plus 4-foo~ ~de bike lanes and Drool ~de side~l~s on both sides India ly, only ~o ~avel lanes would ~e ~ns~ on the bridge. ~e bmdge would include a m~ddre sup~d whi~ wou~d ~ construed in ~,e Iower~onofthe ~o~h bank as smo~ om F~gure 5 ~e suppod would ~ a "pile ~nt" system ~ e, pie~ set ~m the ground 1o suppo~ the bndge s~ure) using 13 l~n~ d~ameter p~es plaid ~n a s~ngte row paralte~ ~h lhe stream ~annel. It is possible lhal the final geotechnicai design report will rec. ommend arrnonng of the north batik to prevent eros..cn. North of the bridge. Orchard Avenue would be exlended to Bush Streel The exlens~on would ~nc!ude h,,,o 12-foci wide travel lanes wrt,n G-foot W~de d~rt shoulders. SoLrth of the southern bridge abutment, ramps would be consLr'u~ed on the east and west s~de of Orchard Avenue The iO-foo! W~de ramps wouid be constr~,JCted to allow City ma~ntesance vehicle acc.ess to Crty-owned property on the south s~de of Or-r Creek The ramps would be gated and not allow pubi¢c aCCeSS. A storm dra~n wc. uld be construe'led that woutd colle~ runoff from ditches south of Brush Street and nor'Lb of Orr Creek Roadside drtohes would be construc,ed adjacent lo the Orchard Avenue E_xlension nor'Lb of O,'T Creek The runoff ~r~ these dr~ches wouid be direcled lo a slorm drain inlet localed abou't 120 fee~ sou"th of Brush Street. A 48-¢nch undergrour-d storm drain would then transpod runoff to a discharge point beneath the north abutment of the proposed bridge. Ruinoff would then d~scharge down the north bank of the creek beneath the bridge ~o Orr C,qeek. A roc::k out'fall would be oonstr,.,cted beneath the storm drain ourtiet to prevent streambank erosion. The drainage pipe has been designed to handle flows from possible future development ,n the Study Area. A 12-inch water IFne would be exlended from i~s current nor'them terminus on Orchard Avenue north to Brush Street a/ong the east s~de of the future Orchard Avenue E-zlens~orVPubhc U'tjlity Easement right-of-way. The water line would be attached to the easl s~de of the bridge above the 100-year flood elevation The new water hne ~s proposed to prowde adequate fireflows along Ford Streel (i e allowing the water hnes to be "looped") No new ser'~ce would be provided o~ th~s new water hne. A 130-fool retaining wall would be constructed along a portion of the wes[ side of the Orchard Avenue Ex'tens on The reta~nmg wall would start about 270 feet north of Ford Streel and exlend about 115 feet nor-th and then turn west for aboud 30 feet along the south s~de of the proposed maintenance ramp road. The retaining wall would have ama. xqmum elevahon of aboul 5 feet. The bridge structure would ~ncJude oOndu~ts to accommodate f't~ure electn,?..al and commun~c, atK)n hnes EXHIBIT B Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement o "r' O II '0 .. NOTE- The source of this map is Figure 6 of the Revised Draft EIR dated October 2002. Attachment # i~' ~ EXHIBIT C Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement Purpose & Intent On May 20, 1992, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency adopted Design Guidelines for the Downtown Design DistricX. Three years later, in 1995, the City adopted a new General Plan, which called for Ihe adoption of Design Guidelines for all commercial development within the City limiLs. After considerable discussion, it was decided that the most appropriate way to proceed was to simply augment the ems~in§ Downtown Design Guidelines for application to commercial development projecLs outside the existing Downtown Design Distncz. The existing Design Guidelines for the downtown area remain unchanged and are included in this document as they were adopted in 1992. They will continue to be applied within the Downtown Des~,gn District as they have since their formal adoption. New guidelines more applicable to the outlying commercial areas and commercial gateways have been prepared and are included as a separate chapter in this document The purpose ot' the Desi~gn Guidelines for projects outside the Downtown Design District is :i to implement the goals and policies of the Community Design Element of the General Plan; 2' to provide design guidance and criteria for commercial development: ' ' to provide site planning and architectural excellence, as well as unity and integriW in the commercial urbanscape outside of the Downtown core: and '.,; to provide attractive commercial areas along the malor transportation corridors outside ',he downtown that will stimulate business and city-wide economic development. -,~ to provide property owners, developers, architects, and project designers with a comprehensive guide for building design. The Design Guidelines are intended to address the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding a lack of design guidelines for commercial development within the City. and [o fulfill the direction contained in the Community Design Element of the Ukiah Gcne~,al Plan. The Design Guidelines are applicable to all commercial development outside the existing Downtown Design District. and are intended to be applied in a fair and reasonable manner, taking inlo consideration the size. configuration, and location of affected and surrounding parcels, as well as the size. scope, and purpose of the individual~cvelopm,&ent projects. Affachment # ^rchitccts. projc~'t designers, and/or proicct applicanLs are expected to make a strong and sincere effort to comply w~th the Design Guidelines and contribute to thc improvement of the City's physical image. Prolecl applicants, with the assistance of their architects and building designers, are expected to put forth a convinong creative Site Planning i i i i iii iiiii i I i i Natural Site Features Generally, a designer should p!an a project to fit a site's natural conditions, rather than alter a site to accommodate a stock building plan. :.:,ignificant existing site features such as mature trees/landscaping, lot size and configuration, topography, and the relationship to surrounding development should be compelling factors in determining the development capacity and design of projects. All required Grading and Drainage Plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or other qualified professional acceptable to the City Engineer. Parking The number of parking stalls and overall parking lot design shall generally comply with the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC.). Deviation from the parking requirements of the UMC. can be approved through the discretionary review process provided a finding is made that there is a unique circumstance associated with the use of the property that results in a demand for less parking than normally expected. These circumstances may include uses that would attract young teenagers, bicyclisLs, or a fiigh number of drop-off patrons. Parking facilities shall be ae:;thetically screened and shaded with shrubs, trees, and short ,,vails and fences according to the requirements ot the Zoning District in which the property is located. The visual prominence of parking areas should be de-emphasized by separating parking areas into small components. The practice of placing the majority of parking areas beween the building(s) de-emphasized by separating parking areas into small comlsoner~ts. 1-he practice of placing the majority of park~ngareas between the building(s) and the primary street frontage should be avoided. i RECOMMENDED: j' Rear Deliven/ ' Noise Screening Around Air Conditioners Landscaping Pleasant Signs Parallel Parking Commercial Building 4, IL I ! I I I II I iii - "LI i L: C2J Pedestrian Orientation I'edestrian walkways should be included that directly link all parking areas with building enlrances, off-site lransportalion facilities, established sidewalks, and adlacent public righls-of-way. T'hcy should also be consislen with uses and archilecture from bolh a functional and aesthelic standpoint. Outdoor pedestrian spaces should bc landscaped and include such features as planters along sidewalks, pedestrian,,°ricntcd signs, attractive street furniture. Iow-level lighting, and outdoor seating areas. Affochment Site Planning I_ ii ' LI iii1~ Compatibility With Surrounding Development ] he placement and layout of buiidings, parking areas, landscaping, exterior lighting, and other site design features should be comi~atib[e with surrounding land uses and architecture from both a functional and aesthetic standpoint. Develolpment should not create unattractive views for neighbors or traffic corridor~. All exposed elevations should maintain consistent architectural character. Service areas, trash enclosures, utility meters, and mechanical and electrical equipment should be screened from view. Property owners are strongly encouraged to develop shared facilities such as driveways, parking areas, pedestrian walkways. and outdoor living areas to maximize usable areas and create unique design opportunities. ~,.tbacks for new development should consider the character of existing frontages. Setbacks deeper than the minimum required are encouraged only in order to allow for sidewalk widening or the creation of special pedestrian areas such as entry'ways, courtways, outdoor cafes, and other features intended to enhance the pedestrian environment. Building Design 11 I II I [ I I I I Architecture Monolonous box-l~ke structures devoid of variety and distinctiveness, and without openings and changes in wall planes are discouraged. Architectural features such as arches, raised parapeL~-,, decorated cornices, eaves, windows, balconies, entry insets. a variety of roof angles and pitches, and the inclusion of relief features in wall surfaces ale strongly encouraged when tied into a comprehensive design theme. Building Colors The ~se of s-trong or loud colors, especially those with no tradition of local u:oge, should be reviewed in context with the overal asthetic of the area. Colors should be con~pa~.ib[e with adioining buildings Color work on the side and rear walls should be compatible wit:h the colors on the front or street side walls. Decoration and trim should be pa~nted in order to cai[attention to it. Building Materials The creative use of wood, stucco, masonry (brick, stone, tile), and recycled materials arc strongly encouraged. The use of metal buildings is discouraged, unless they are designed in a creative and unique way. that meets the purpose and intent of the Design Guidelines. Concrete block and exp~ased concrete are generally acceptable building materials, provided they are treated, textured, painted. and/or used in a pleasing aesthetic way consistent ,,wth the design guidelines Materials should be selected to create compatibility between the building and adjoining buildings Lighting Exterior I~ghling should be designed Io enhance building design and landscaping, as well as provide ~fety and security. Generally. exterior Iight~ng should bc subdued. It should not spill out and create glare on adioining propcrlies, and should not be direcled towards thc night sky Light standard heighls should be predicated on Ihe I~ghting need of the particular location and use. Tall lighting [~xtures that illuminate large areas should be avoided L,ghting fixtures, standards, and all exposed acccssorics should bc harmonious with build,ns design, and prclerably historic and innovative in style. All [x'dcstrian and building access areas should be adequately lighted to provide safely, security. and aesthetic qual,ty. Attochmenl -#' oite Planning (co,,,,.; ~ L _ L I __ i i i i i i i -- ii ii IL j i{nergy Conservation i~ ~' h active solar (collectors) and passive solar (building orientation, landscaping, etc.) design are encouraged. Natural ventilation and .,:-,hading should be used to cool buildings whenever possible, and the use of sunlight should be used for direct heating a~,d i}lumir~ation whenever possible. S<-flar heating equipment need not be screened, but should be as unobtrusive as possible and complement the building design. Every effort should be made to integrate, solar panels into the roof design, flush with the roof slope. Solar collector oannot be seen from street. I t I I I ii ~ ~ ~ NOT ~ Solar collector is visible from street. Signs [ I I I I I I i iii ! I I I II f-he amount, type. and location of signage on a site shall generally comply with the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code_ However, sign programs should be designed tastefully and in a way where the overall signage does not dominate the site. Sandwich board signs shall conform to the requirements of the ukiah Municipal Code, and shall be tastefully de.signed with subdued colors, minimal sign lettering, and a creative appearance. Every sign should be designed in scale and proportion w~th the surroundingbu~lt environment. Signs should be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. 1 he colors, materials, and I~ghting of every sign should be resIraincd and harmonious with the building and site. No sign shall be placed within the public right-of-way without the securement of an Encroachment Permit. Outdoor Storage & Service Areas Storage areas should bc limited to thc rear of a site. and from public view with a solid l'ence or wall using concrete, wood, stone. brick, or other similar material and should bc screened. All outdoor storage areas and enclosures should be screened, when possible, with landscaping. 11 trash and recycling areas arc required in thc discretionary review process, the dosing and building malerlals for thcs<' areas shall be consistent with the buildings and landscaping on the site. II shall al:~o bc consistent with thcrequ-- .--ircmcnls~ of __e~h Ukiah Municipal Code. Affc]chmenf # ~~ ~.~l ',,where common mailboxes arc provided, they should be cio_se to the front entrance o!' building(s), in a location approved by thc US Post Office. The architectural character should be similar in [orm, materials, and colors to thc surrounding buildings. fences & Walls All sides of perimeter fencing exposcx.:l to public view should be finished in a n~anner compatible with a project's materials, finishes, colors, and architec'lural styling. Large blank fence walls, and fences and walls that create high visual barriers are strongly discouraged. All proposed unpainted wood surfaces should be treated or staintx:l to preserve and enhance their natural colors. No portion of a wall or fence should be used for advertising or display- No barbed wire. concerlina wire, or chain link should be used as fencing material if the fence is visible from the public right-of-way. All fencing and walls shall comply with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code. No fencing or wall shall obstruct the sight distances of motorists, as determined by the City Engineer. (See Illustration) Landscaping N]N Flllq I III I I Post & R~il II I I ti III · All landscaping shall comply with zoning code requirements. Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations. l.andscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate v,.~[hout extensive irrigation. Native, habitat-friendly flowering plants are strongly encouraged. All plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that a viable and mature appearance can be attained in a reasonably short amount of time. Deciduous trees shall constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the south and west building exposures: non- deciduous street species shall be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solar access on the proiect site or abutting properties. All new developments shall include a landscaping coverage of 20 percent (20%) of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable. A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings. Prolects involving the redevelopment / reuse of existing buildings shall provide as much landscaping as feasible. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system and Lighting Plan. All required landscaping [or commercial development projects shall be adequately maintained in a viable condition. Parking Lots Parking lots with twelve (I 2) or more parking stalls shall have a tree placed between every four (.1) parking stalls with a continuous linear planting strip, rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot trees shall I:~r~marily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within ten years of planting. Based upon the design of the parkinglol, a reduced number o[trees may be approved through the discretionary review process I'arking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and shrubs. The planting of la',vn areas wilh the trees and shrubs is acceptable, provided they do not dominate the planting str~ps. Parking lots with twelve (I 2) or more parking stalls shall have defined pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian [acilities within landscaped areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon thc design of thc parking lot. and thc use that ~ is serving, relic[ from th~s requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process. Street trees are required. 1'hey may be placed on the property proposed tordevelopment instead of within the publ,c r,ght- of-way il the location is approved by the Cily Engineer. based upon saiety and maintenance faclors. slrcc .":,peoes of street trees shall be selected from the Ukiah Masler'Tree List with the consultation o[ the Cily slalf. All ttrees En ~neer ~ shall be planted consistent with the Standard Plantin~q Detail on t~lc ,,,,.,,th the City : g' -Attachment # EXHIBIT D Road Improvement and Land Use Agreement 'She Zoning AdminSs~-a~or an&'or Planning Comm.issioa shall m~e ~nd~gs when ac:rog to approve ~y ~scretion~ pe~t ~5~ ~e Brash S~eet ~ ,' ~ ' ~s~e. ~e ~gs sh~ not be va~e ~d conclusion~,. ~e fmd~gs shM] be s~ciently deuiled 1o apprise a revie~Sng court of ~e basis of ~e ac:ion by b~dging ~e gap be~'een ~e evidence ~d ~e decision-m~er's conc!usioms, ~d snail be b~ed upon evidence contained m ~e a~i~s~ative record. Failm~e ~o make findings ~at suppo~ ~e following de~e~inatio~ sh~l re,It m a de~ of ~e si~e developmen~ pe~t application: 1. The proposal is consistent with the goals objectives, and policies o£the CourtU, General Plan. ' 2. The location, size, and intensity of the proposed pro. Sect '.~,5!t not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedesthan traf~c pattern. The accessibility of off-su-eet parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect To traffic on adjacent streets v~511 not create a hazardous or inconvemen~ condition to adjacent or sm-rounding uses. 4. Su. Lqcien~ landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the proposed structure(s) ~-om the street and adjoining building sites, and bre -ak_rog up and screening large expanses o£ paved areas. 5. The proposed development will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property, or on the property in the neighborhood; nor will it hinder the development or use of buildings m the neighborhood, or impair the value thereof. 6. The improvement of any commercial or industrial structure v, qJl not have a substantial deasmental impact on the character or v~ue of an adjacent residential zoning district. 7. The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features, including ~ees, shrubs, creeks, and the natural grade of the site. There is sufficient varieD., creativity., and articulation to the architecture and design o£the structure(s) and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like umnteresting ex-temal appear~ce. Attachment EXHIBIT E Road Improvement and Land Use A§reement Introduction and Summary. Introduction This report presents an analysis of the anticipated traf'lqc impacts anticipated in the northeast area of Ukiah duc to cumulative land use development and completion of an extension of'Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Brush Street. Cumulative development included a number of undeveloped parcels in this area of the City as well as the development ora 95-acre area in the Brush Street Triangle area which is generally bounded by U.S. 101 to the north and east, Orr Creek to the south and the mi[road right-of-way to the west. The traffic study was completed in accordance with evaluation criteria specified by the Mendocino Council of Government (MCOG), and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques. This plan includes a property assessment,/fee structure and an associated draft AB 1600 ordinance which provides a 'structure for f~mding the recommended improvements. A previous traffic analysis for this area was completed as part of the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Re~'ised Draft E/R, Leonard Charles and Associates, October 2002 (Section 3.5 - Traffic and Circulation, completed by Crane Transportation Group). A peer review of this previous traffic analysis was completed as part of this process and is included in Appendix A. Su~nmary Traffic Grov,% Assumptions City o fUkiah staffprovided a list of undeveloped parcels x~qthin the study area that could potentially increase traffic levels within the study area. These parcels are projected to generate approximately 12,165 new trips to the surrounding street network on a daily basis. Since no traffic model is currently available for the City of Uk/ah, long-term background traffic gro,,~ was determined through the use ora growth factor. A background growth rate of 1.0 percent per year for 10 years (total growth increase of approximately 10 percent) was applied to the existing traffic volumes. This grow% rate is intended to represent land development in other areas of Ukiah and intensification of existing uses. Three alternative land use patterns were developed for the traffic analysis of the Brush Street Triangle area. The alternatives were crafted in order to obtain a range in vehicle tr/p generation and travel patterns to/from the site, and to assist with prioritizing the improvement projects of the circulation plan. It was assumed that the Brush Street Triangle area includes 95.71 acres of gross land area. The three alternatives consisted of the following. Alternative ] - DEIR Land Use: The first alternative represents the same land use that was evaluated in the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchord Avenue Extension Revised Draft EJR. This land use consisted of 641,728 square feet of retail space, 241,461 square feet of industrial space and 56 apartment units. Development of Alternative I would be expected to result in approximately 18, 189 new vehicle trips per day on the surrounding street network. Alternative 2 - Ai~ort B~iness Park 2002 Equivalence: In order to assess a less intense retail alternative, or one which represents an earlier phase o fAlternative 1, it was assumed that the Brush Street Triangle area may experience comparable 10-year levels of development as the Airport Business Park. In the 10 years since its initiation, 37.80 acres have been developed at the Airport Business Park. The resulting 326,330 square feet of new building space was assumed to consist of both retail and ' ' Attachment # ~ Brush Street Triangle Transportation Study %3nitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 1 Mendocino Council of Governments May 30, 2003 uses at a similar ratio to Alternatives 1. Alternative 2 is projected to generate substantially fewer trips, at approxhnately 8,218 vehicle trips per day. Alternative 3 - Mixed Use: The third land use alternative is based on a mixed use concept consisting of 50 percent residential uses (47.9 acres), 25 percent commercial uses (23.9 acres) and 25 percent industrial uses (23.9 acres). The resulting land use mix consists of 536 multi-family units, 48 single-family units, 312,720 square feet of retail uses, and 208,480 square feet of industrial uses wh/ch would be expected to generate approximately 12,251 trips per day. Need for InTerchange Modifications In order for the Perkins Street interchange area to operate with acceptable conditions between Orchard Avenue and the U.S. 101 ramps, one of the follov,4ng two alternatives would need to be implemented. A) All conflicting movements at the Perkins Street/U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection would need to be prohibited tlzrough the use of a median on Per 'kins Street. B) The southbound ramps at the Perkins Street interchange would be eliminated, and new southbound off and on ramps would be relocated to the eastern terminus of Brush Street. Due to the high cost of this alternative and long lead time in completing modifications to the State Highway system, it is recommended that mitigation measures to serve traffic growth in northeastern Ukiah be formulated to operate with ramp alternative "A" flu'st, followed by alternative "B" in the future. Recommended Mitigation Measures Based on the operational analysis presented in the report, the following intersection improvements were recommended. ,Worth Sta~e Srreet/Ta'.S. 10] Northbound Ramps - Install a traffic signal. North State Street/U.S. ]Oi Southbound Ramps - Consider prohibiting the left-turn movement from the off-ramp. North Sta~e Street/Brush Street-Low Gap Road- Widen the westbound approach to two lanes and provide for protected left turn signal phasing Main S[reet/Perl, n'ns Street - Either install a traffic signal or modern roundabout. Main Street/Gobbi Street - Install either a traffic signal or a single-lane modern roundabout to mitigate deficient operation. A roundabout with an inscribed diameter of 110 feet would operate acceptably. Orchard Avenue/Bruxh Street- Install a modem roundabout. Orchard Avenue/Ford Street and Clara Avenue - Provide a center two-way left-turn lane on Orchard Avenue to facilitate left turns onto Ford Street and Clara Avenue. Orchard A venue/£erki~ Street- Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide separate right-turn lanes and implement fight-turn overlap signal phasing on all four approaches. Afachment # _~~ Brush Street Triangle Tram~portation Study Mendocino Council of Governments Orchard A venue/Gobbi S~,reer - Either instal! a t~*affic signal or modern roundabout. Perk~'ns Street/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps - Install a raised median on Perkins Street to eliminate all conflicting movements. Most of the prohibited movements could be accommodated via a return U-turn on the east side of the interchange. Begin the process of relocating the southbound ramps to the terminus of Brush Street and closing the southbound U.S. 10 l/?er 'kins Street ramps. It is expected that this process would take approximately 10 years. Perkins Street/U.S. 10! Northbound Ramps - Install a modem roundabout to serve U-turn movements back to the southbound ramps. Gobbi oCtreet/U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps - Install a traffic signal. Mitigation Funding The total mitigation cost varies from $6,880,000 to $7,550,000. Almost one-half of this cost, $3,300,000 is for the interchange ramp relocation to Brush Street. The cost to provide acceptable traffic operation at all of the study intersections is essentially the same under all three land use alternatives for the Triangle Area. In order to finance the mitigation measures which would be required to accommodate the future traffic growth, traffic impact fees have been developed. It is assumed that the cost of the mitigation measures would be allocated to anticipated development in the study area including: identified potential projects on vacant parcels in the City of UkJah development at the Brush Street Triangle area background land use intensification in the City or Cou. nty which impacts the study area Assuming that local development would not fund any of the interchange ramp relocation to Brush Street, the resulting fee varies bepa, een $1,149 and $1,547 per p.m. peak hour trip generated. If the local development funds 50 percent of the $3,300,000 interchange relocation cost, the fee would vary between $1,596 and $2,148 per p.m. peak hour trip. In order to gain adequate funds to complete the capital projects and due to the uncertainty of the amount and type of land use to be developed on the Brush Street Triangle site, it is recommended that the traffic impact fees be based $2,148 per p.m. peak hour trip. Attachment # ~t...~ Brush Street Tria.ngle Transportation Study Wkitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 3 Mendocino Council of Governments May 30, 2003 Stud)' Parameters Study Area The study area is located in the northeast section of the City of Ukiah including U.S. 101 and the City arterials of North State Street, East Perkins Street and Gobbi Street. The Brush Street Triangle development site is bomnded by U.S. 101 to the north and east, Orr Creek to the south and the railroad right-of-way to the west is unincorporated County of Mendocino land. Freeway U.S. 70! provides travel two lanes in each direction and serves as the primarily link to other regions to the north and south. Interchanges in the study area include North State Street, Perkins Street, and Gobbi Street. All of the ramp intersections at the three interchanges are uncontrolled on the main street with stop controls on the ramp approaches to the arterials. Arterial Streets Store Street is the primary north-south arterial in the City of Ukiah. Th_is arterial intersects with the U.S. 101 interchange at the north end ofthe City and extends to an interchange with U.S. 101 at the south end of Ukiah. Within the study area, State Street provides four travel lanes. Peri~q'r,x Street is an east-west arterial pro,,dding access between U.S. 101 and residential areas to the west. East of U.S. 101, Pcrldns Street becomes Vichy Springs Road which provides access to large unincorporated residential areas. Between State Street and Orchard Avenue there are four travel lanes. East of Orchard Avenue, PerMns Street includes two travel lanes. Gobbi Street is a two-lane arterial providing access between U.S. 101 and residential areas to the west. Collector Streets Orchard Avenue is a two-lane major collector providing north-south access between Ford Street and residential areas south of Gobbi Street. This study assumes the extension of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street north to Brush Street. Empire Dri~,e - Ford Road is an east-west two-lane minor collector providing access at the north end of Ukiah. It is assumed that Orchard Avenue vdll be extended north from Brush Street to an intersection with Ford Road near an overcrossing of U.S. 101. Low Gap Road - Br~sh Street is a two-lane major collector street providing east-west access from unincorporated areas to the west, the high school, County Adnmnistration Center and residential areas to the development area known as the Brush Street Triangle Area. Clara Avenue, which is classified as a mi_nor collector street, provides access through a residential neighborhood from North State Street to Orchard Avenue. Residential Streets Ford Street is classified as a residential street and provides access through a residential neighborhood from North State Street to Orchard Avenue Attachment # ~-7 ,l 1 _1 l Brush Street Tn'angle Transportation Study Mendocino Council of Governments Orr Si. feet is a minor residential street over Orr Creek which currently serYes as a diversion route tVrom Orchard Avenue to S!ate Street. The extension of Orchard Avenue is expected to relieve this street from ttLrough traffic. The study area includes lhe following study intersections and is shown in Figure 1. 1. North State Sweet/U.S. 101 ~ Ramps I 1. Orchard Avenue/Ford Road (future) 2. North State StreevTJ.S. 101 SB Ramps 12. Orchard Avenue/Brush Street (future) 3. North State Street/Ford Road-Empire Drive 13. Orchard Avenue/Ford Street 4. North State Street/Brush St-Low Gap Road 14. Orchard Avenue/Clara Avenue 5. North State Street"Ford Street 15. Orchard Avenue/Perkins Street 6. North State Sweet/Clara Street 16. Orchard Avenue/Gobbi Street 7. North State Street/Perkins Street 17. Perkins Street;SJ.S. 101 SB Ramps 8. South State Street/Gobbi Street 18. Perkins Street/U.S. 101 NB Ramps 9. Main Street?Perkins Street 19. Gobbi StreeffU.S. 101 SB Ramps 10. Main Street/Gobbi Street 20. Gobbi Street/U.S. 101 NB Ramps As shown in Figure 1, study intersections which are controlled by traffic signals include North State Street/ Ford Road-Empire Drive, North State Street~q3rush Street-Low Gap Road, North State Street/Perkins Street, South State Street./Gobbi Street, and Orchard Avenue/Perkins Street. Intersections controlled by all-way stop signs include Main Street?PerkJ_ns Street, Main Street/Gobbi Street and Orchard Avenue/Gobbi Street. The remaining study intersections have uncontrolled conditions on the main street and are controlled by stop signs on the m/nor street approaches. Intersection turn lane configurations for the study intersections are included in Appendix t3. Time of Day Analysis Periods Timid analysis focused on intersection operation during two peak hours of the day. Based on an analysis of existing traffic counts, which is shovm in the following section, the a.m. peak hour volumes are generally 15 to 30 percent lower than the p.m. peak hour volumes while the midday volumes range from 5 percent less to 5 percent higher in some cases in comparison with the p.m. peak hour volumes. Therefore, the weekday midday and p.m. peak hours were included in the analysis. Typically the midday peak hour occurs between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. while the p.m. peak hour is the highest volume hour be~,een 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Study Analysis Scenarios The following scenarios were assessed in the traffic analysis. I. Existing Traffic Operations - These conditions are based on existing weekday p.m. peak hour volumes that were first collected in August of 2002 and were sample counted again in January of 2003 together with midday peak hour traffic counts derived L-om the previous p.m. peak hour counts as well as daily machine counts collected at sample locations in January of 2003. II. Existing plus Cumulative Ci_ty Projects - This scenario includes the addition ofthe traffic anticipated to be generated by the development of currently undeveloped parcels in the northeast study area of the City. The extension of Orchard Avenue from Ford Street to Ford Road and its associated traffic diversion was assumed to be completed for this scenario. III. Future wdthout Triangle Development - This scenario, which does not include the Triangle Area development, includes the addition of cumulative traffic anticipated Brush Street Triangle Tranxportation Study W-hitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Page 5 Mendocino Council of Governments May 30, 2003 Background Traffic Condilions Future Road Modifications For all furore ~affic zmalyses it v,'as assumed that Orchvxd Avenue would be extended from Ford Street through Brush Street to Ford Road. Traffic was diverted from several routes to this new connection including Perk/ns Street to North State Street, Orchard Avenue to Clara Avenue to North State Street, Orchard Avenue to Ford Street to North State Street and Orchard Avenue to Ford Street to Brush Street via Orr Street. Cumulative CiD, Development Projects Trip Generation City of Ukiah staff provided a list of undeveloped parcels within the study area that could potentially increase traffic levels within the study area. These parcels, including their Assessor Parcel number and land use are summarized in Table 4. 1 i Based on the ITE trip generation rates, these 12 parcels are projected to generate approximately 12,165 new trips to the surrounding street network on a daily basis, with 760 of these trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour, 806 during the midday peak hour and 1,172 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. These trips were distributed to the surrounding street network m the traffic analysis. Additional cumulative development project details including location maps and a trip generation summary are included in Appendix E. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that these cumulative projects would develop within a ten year period. Table 4 Cumulative City Development Projects Trip Generation P.M. Peak Hour Site APN Land Use Units Trip Rate Trips _1 _ 001-36-039 General Light Industrial 141.06 ksf 0.98 138 -- __ _3-I.0~i(03-~-5)-5__i'_- --'~____lRetail [ 14.37ksf 2.43 35 .... - -5- -1~)05716-~(~ i-2-&~'013'-- [-Medical Office 79.80ksf [.. 3.66 292 , 6 J002-16-010 {Medical Of'rice I 22.30ksf [ 3.66 82 - -5---{ 002_20_038 Retail 7.14 ksf { 2.43 17 - Retail 29.45 ksf 1.94 57 8 002-23-212 & -213 i Office 29.45 ksf 1.49 44 i 002-28-218 & -219 __ . Light Industrial 117.79 ksf 0.98 115 ' ......... 9 I(several)002-34-xxx IOffice 13.94 ksf [ 1.49 21 ....... 10 (several) 003-58-xxx Retail 26.14 ksf 1.95 51 11 003-04-070 & -075 Retail 22.30 ksf 1.93 43 !2 003-04-030 Apartment 64 units 0.62 40 Total Trips 1,172 Note: APN = Assessor's Parcel Number ksf= thousand square feet AHachrnent # ~ Brush Street Triangle Transportation Study lift_' 1_ _1. O. 'tll_.'_k ...... "'r- ....... ~_... · Mendocino Council of Governments