Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-04-20 Packet
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 April 20, 2005 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATIONS a. Proclamation' Workers Memorial Day in the City of Ukiah b. Proclamation' Poetry Month 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2005 Sm RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Disbursements for Month of March 2005 b. Rejection of Claim for Damages Received from Wilma Lucille Pryse and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund c. Approval Of Notice Of Completion For Street Striping 2004, Specification No. 04-09 d. Adoption of Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending Various Sections of the Ukiah City Code Contained in Division 4, Chapter 1, Entitled: "Water" e. Authorize Execution Of Amendment To The Agreement With EBA Engineering In An Amount Not To Exceed $191,109.35 For Implementation Of The Interim Corrective Action Plan At The Corporation Yard And Approve Budget Amendment In The Amount Of $149,109.35 f. Award of Bid to Lake County Electric Supply for the Purchase of Light Fixtures for the Construction of a Third Field at the Ukiah Softball Complex in an Amount Not to Exceed $18,864 g. Approval of Modifications to Two Revised Administrative Support Positions 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. am PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Public Hearing Regarding Notification of Award of Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant in the Amount of $100,000 FY 04-05 b. Discussion And Action On Krause/Toms Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of the Marin VenturesNValgreens Store On East Perkins Street Discussion And Direction Regarding The Planning Permit Processing And Cost Recovery Study Adoption of Resolution Increasing Fees For Ambulance Services Provided by the Ukiah Fire Department C! d. w UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion of Franchise Renewal Negotiations and Proposed Agreement With Adelphia Communications 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Report on Regulation of Skateboards in Shopping Centers and Other Privately Owned Commercial Areas b. Discussion and Possible Direction to Staff Regarding An Urgency Ordinance Regulating Marijuana Cultivation c. Discussion And Possible Action Regarding Public Hearings (McCowen) and/or Letter of Support For Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (Rodin) d. Adoption and Resolution for In Home Services Funding- Councilmember McCowen 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 12.CLOSED SESSION 13. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, every year many workers across America are injured or disabled by ~ workplace injuries and occupational disease; and WHEREAS, strong safety and health protections, high employment standards, and the elimination of perilous conditions should be guiding principles for each employer and employee; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah strives to provide a safe work environment for its employees and has initiated many programs and procedures to reduce workplace injuries and hazardous situations; and WHEREAS, all employers and employees are encouraged to rededicate themselves to improving safety and health in every American workplace; and WHEREAS, acknowledgment of these factors by recognizing those who have suffered from workplace injuries is a dramatic method of educating our community about this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mark Ashiku, Mayor of the City of Ukiah, on behalf of my fellow City Councilmembers, Phil Baldwin, Maxi Rodin, John McCow~n, and Douglas Crane proclaim April 28, 2005 as WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY IN THE CITY OF UKIAH in recognition of workers killed, injured, and disabled on the job and inform all residents of the valley about the gathering at 5:30 P.M. at Alex Thomas Plaza on April 28 that is put on by the worldng men and women in Mendocino County to observe this special day. 3a PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, poetry is elemeNtM to the human psyche, expressed in many di[/erent £orms [rom aNcient musiNgs through medieval classics and epics to ~enMssance sonnet~ a~d co~tempo~ ~itlags~ aad ~E~ verse fi~ been the b~b lot e~ly mentM ~n~ti~ and ~e [oundan~n learni~ and undersmndin~ ~ressing the jo~ and p~s o[fie~ and souls, and deligfin~ both young and old Miket and ~E~ April is celebrated ~ Nan~nal Poe~ Mon~ throughout this ~and land ci~s ~d toms l~ge and smMb and ~EREA~ ~e Ci~ o[ Uki~ fi~ joined ~e gro~ng lea~e o[ Poet ~ureate sponso~ to fie~fiten public awareness o[ the bene~ o[ poe~l and ~ER~ UM~ spewed bac~d is ...... nmgn', a Medie~ [o~ o[Japanese poe~ sa'll popular todayt and ~E~ HMku does not depend upon rfi~e or rfi~, but ra~er is ~ree lines ~th only 17 sy~ables captu~ng a scene in nature in a ~y which creates a ffffd response in the mind o[ the reader or listener ~rougfi bre~ and simplici~ ~out e~an~us verbi~e; and . ~ER~ it is appropriate lot U~'~ to hold a HMku [~M to celebrate i~ m~ad and v~ied na~rd c~acterisa~, ~and ~e oppomnla~s lot local poea'c ~ression, and unique posi~bn o[ reverse spewing ~ ~is [orm o[ poet~l and ~EREA~ '~pri~n~e [esn'vM dappled ci~ o[ r~wood uM~ haiku" NO ~ THEREFO~ ~ Mark ~hiku, Mayor o[ ~e Ci~ o[ Uki~, on befiM[ o[my [e~ow Ci~ Councilmembers, Pfi~ BMd~n, John McCowen, M~ Rodin, and Doug Cr~e do hereby proclMm Ap~ 2~5 ~ POETR Y MONTH IN UKIAH and urge MI citizens to attend scheduled poetry readings throughout our community~ participate in the "Poem o£ the Da~' program at tho Ukiah Libraty~ and enjoy the Third Annual ukt'aHaiku FestivM on Sunda~ May 1~ 2005 at the Ukiah Con£erence Center. Date: April 20, 2005 Mayor 3b MEMO Agenda Item: 4a TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~./~_.~. ~_-~.. ~'2~-~j SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2005 DATE: April 15, 2005 Every attempt will be made to forward the Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council meeting held on January 5, 2005 to the City Council for review by Tuesday, April 19, 2005. Memos: CC-delay of minutes ITEM NO.: 6a DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005 Payments made during the month of March 2005, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 60761-60848, 60850-60951,61036-61214 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: none Payroll check numbers: 60680-60760, 60952-61035 Payroll Manual check numbers: 60849 Void check numbers: none This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of March 2005. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Mike McCann, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED Ca,dace HorSley, City Mana~j~er KRS:WORD/AGENDAFMAR05 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005 Demand Payments approved: 60761-60848, 60850-60951, 61036-61131,61132-61214 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $107,819.12 131 Equipment Reserve Fund 140 Park Development 141 Museum Grants $6,752.66 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant 150 Civic Center Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund $4,683.38 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 205 Sup Law Enforce. Srv. Fund (SLESF) 206 Community Oriented Policing 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $380.40 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 250 Special Revenue Fund 260 Downtown Business Improvement 290 Bridge Fund 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 310 Special Aviation Fund 315 Airport Capital Improvement $120.00 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant 333 Comm. Development Block Grant 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 340 SB325 Reimbursement Fund 341 S.T.P. 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 345 Off-System Roads Fund 410 Conference Center Fund $8,072.08 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 575 Garage $1,596.06 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 60680-60760 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 23408-23553 PAYROLL PERIOD 2/13/05-2/26/05 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 60849, 60952-61035 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 23554-23688 PAYROLL PERIOD 2127105-03112105 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: NONE 600 Airport 611 Sewer Construction Fund 612 City/District Sewer 615 City/District Sewer Replace 620 Special Sewer Fund (Cap Imp) 640 San Dist Revolving Fund 650 Spec San Dist Fund (Cap Imp) 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 661 Landfill Corrective Fund 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 678 Public Safety Dispatch 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 695 Golf 696 Warehouse/Stores 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 800 Electric 805 Street Lighting Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 820 Water 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 900 Special Deposit Trust 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 920 Liability Fund 940 Payroll Posting Fund 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 960 Community Redev. Agency 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. 975 Russian River Watershed Assoc 976 Mixing Zone Policy JPA TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $10,015.54 $3O2,269.67 $35,781 .O5 $7,43O.65 $25,142.77 $621.67 $17,900.72 $5,085.5O $2,344.66 $4,701.33 $6,913.44 $790,751.51 $9,086.50 $12,647.07 $151,979.22 $287,373.49 $5,034.26 $378.42 $325.00 $274,9O2.97 $2,050.63 $41.16 $1,359.00 $11,276.00 $11 ,O84.30 $2,107,586.89 $56,844.65 $114,775.12 $329,191.48 $2,608,398.14 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance oo o O0 oooooooooo ~oo§oo~oo O0 O0 O0 0000000000 0~ 0000 0000 0000 ~0 0 000 0 0 0000 o o o o o . 0 oo~ · , ~--q ~-~ o , 0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000 HHHH HH H 0 O0 O~ ~ O0 ~:0 ~0 ~ 0 H r.z.] ,< , ~ ~ 0~ HHHHHHHHHH ~ O~H ~HH~ \~ 0000 0000 0000 00 00 00 ,--I rq 00 0 O0 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 O0 · · o , · , O~ ~ r..r_] o_~ r~ H ~ ,--] 0000 r JO o~ o o :~o o~ O0 O0 0000000 0 ~ ~0 ~ 00 00 00 C~ 0 00 o o o o o o · 0 o ~ o c~ o ~ o o · 0 Oo ~o n::rj O~ 0 0 0 ~0 H 0 o oo o ,-I co co o o o o c~ o o o o o o o ©0 c) c~ 0 0 ooo ~oo 0 © o ~ ~ o o o o o cz) o · . · ~ ~ ° o r-q , ~ 0 ~ , o o o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 D ~ ffi 0 0 o~ o o o oo o · · . ~ o oo~ ~o~ oo~ oo oo~ O~ o o o o o o · · , n~ O~ 000 ~m O~ H~ ,-1 H ~1 0 :~00 ~JO0 O0 O0 0000000 o o o o o o o ',~ o ~ ,ri O0 Ln O0 ~0 LD <2> C> 00000 O0 0 o o o r-'q .~ m 12.., 0 0 o o o o o · . ~° cq , r.q ~1 ~q · o o ,-I o · , i..n t-i , o fN1 Ln O~ ~ 6 i 00~0 oo o oooo oo o o i.n Ln ¢'4 · , <2> (~ 0 H ~ Hr...) ~ H O0 ~ 0 M 0 0 0 0 rJ . o > o oooo oooo o oo oo oo o oo oo o o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 0 0 o o 0~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~0~0~00~0~0~00 ~oo~oo~o~oo~oo~~o~og~ ~°°~°~°°~°~°°~°~°22°~oo o oo o oo o ~o ~ ~ CXl 0 , 0 ~ 0 0000000000 0000000000 000 ~--I 00 00 oo~ ~ oo~ ~oo 00000000 O0 O0 O0 0000000000 0000000000 O~ O0 O0 ~o~oo o ~o ~ O O O O O O r..4 ~ r./"} H omc) ~oo H~HHHHHH 0o ~o ~oooooooo 0 C) oo~~o 0000000 o 0 00 00 00 · ~° r--'l · 0 LN 0 ['"- ~oo~o~ O0 O0 0000000 ~oo~oo O~ O0 ~oo~ 00000~0 00000~0 H~OHHHH0 ~000 0 ~0000000 or-d o o o oooo oooo ~s o~oo oo~o oo o o~ ~oo~ o~o o~ oo oo~ o o o o o o · 0 o o , o o · f.~O HHO HHHH0 o~ 0 o o~ o ~¢.., ~ H :::4 I-I r,.J · o o cD I.-I r,j · o > [I3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o ,.~ r..-I 0 0 o ~3 o o o o o o , o o ~ 0~ · · o o ~ o ~:> 000 ~00 i O~ ~j · o > o o~ o o o o o o o c~ ~oo~ oo 00000 0 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0 0 00~ O0 o~ · 0 0 °g~ o~o ~oo~ oo 0000~ 0 o ~oo~ o oo o ~oo§oo o ~°° OO OO 000000000000 ~°° ~oo ~~oo~o~o~ ~~ ~° O~ ~r~ O~ 0 H O~ © 0 O~ 0 HHHHHHHHHHHH ~ ~°°°°°°°ooooo H ~ 0 O~ 0 00 000 O00 O00 000 oo~ooo~oo~oo~oo oo oo~ oo oo ~o 00000 00000000 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 000000 O0 O0 0 0 oo~o oo oooo o o o o o o , o o , · c~ ~:~ 12o ~o I-.q o · o o,, ° o~ oo ooo , 0 , , o 8oo;o~8oo88oo88 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000 O0 ~ ~~~000~~0 00000000000000~0 000000000000~0 HHNHHHHHHNHNHHHN 0000000000000000 ~oooooooooooooooo ~J · > O~ ~ ~ 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 0000 O0 oo~§ ~oo 000000 000000 000000 0 O0 O0 000000000 00~00~00 ~00~0~ ~H HH o o~°°~oo O0 O0 oo~o~ ~oo 000000 000000000 ~000000000 0 ~HNHHHH H ~ ~HHNHHH H 00 000 u~ LD o o 000000 000000 0 0 o~ oo O~ 0 :::= 0 0 0 ~0 © 0 © 0 r~ r-.4 H rJ · 0 0 000o00 00 o 0 00 0 o 00 0 00 ~ {2> o~ ~0 o o o o oooo oooo 0 0 o ~oo~o o~o~ 0000~0 000~ O0 000 o~ ~oo · 0 H~0 ~ H ooo oo, H ~ , 0 0 oooo HHHH ~ ~ 0 ~mm ~ o HHH H~ 2~rJ OH 0 ~ t./} H 0~~ H~~ ~0000 0 H 0 0 O0 [I3 0 O0 O0 O0 000 0000000000000000 00 00 r-t ~q o oo oooo o o o o ~o~ OoO o o ~:~ o · o o o o · o o o o i ~oo oo oooo OOO~ OOOO ~O ~~O OOO O46'404 · · O OO o i Hi H ~o ~ ~ H ~J . o > o L~ 00000 00000000000000 0 O0 00000 0 000 0000 0 0 oo ~ ~oo 00000 °°~° · ~ ooo>m ooo~ ~ o o oo ooo oooooooooooooo o oo~o ...0,....0...0 o o~~ o o...oooo...,oo oo oo o~ o oo~ ~~° ~°°~° 00~ o ~oo ~0000 0000 0 000 c~ c> o o o oo oooo 0 0 omomo o ~o ~ m O0 ~0~ 0 > O~ og ~J · > o o oo ooooo ooooo oo oooo oooo oo oo oo oooooooooooooo o ~oo~o O0 O0 00000 0 0 0 · 0 , 0 · i 00~0 o;~oo~oo~oo§~ 0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000 0~0000~0000~00 ~0~~0~~0~ ~0 ~0 O~ O0 oo~o~o~oo~ O0 0 O~ ~ 0 ~0 0 O~ i o~°~o oooooooooooooo 00000000000000 O0 00000 00 00 L~ C~ 00 O0 0 0 0 O0 00000 °~°°~ ~0 H HO 00 00 00 . 00 ~ 0 ~ 0 · 0 00 ~° 0 O0 00000 °~°°~ 00000 00000 00000 0 t~ 0 ,< Ot~ H I:~ ~0 H ~ ~r~ ~J . 0 0 O~ i ~ rJ . o > c> 0 H kC) rJ · > o o o o o o o o o o co o o oo oooo 0 0 0~ oo ~° c~ ° o o o o · 0 , o o~ o o o · o · o ~ o · g° [.f,..] H H ~ i ~.., ¢::: o~ 0 0 ~o 0000 0000 ~o~ 0000 o o 0 O00 0 0 O0 C~I Cxl C~1 · 0 , , 0 ~o oo oooo oooo oooo ~ 0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ffi mooo ~ 0 ~ ~ H ~0 r..J · > 000000 000000 000000 000000 o~oo~o 0 O0 0 0000000 O0 O0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O0 O0 ~0~0 ~0~0 E§ooEo~ O0 O0 0000000 0000~0 0 m ~o H~~ 0 o o o . o , o o · o o~ r.-t ~ O~ ~o ~E~ OH Cf} ~ 0000000 0 ,< O~ rj · o > o o o o o oo oo oo oo oo o oo oo oo o oo ooooooooooooooooooo ~~~~oo~oo;;~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 °°8 0 0000000000 0 0000 · ~ o O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 8~~~o~ ~ O~ 0 © ~0 0 0 (J . o o oo o o o oo o oo o o o 0 0 OOoO o o · · 0 0 · , o o U oo~ o o o oo · 0 0 oo o · 0 · 0 H~0 o ,<o o rs} o Or../'} 0 i ~0 ,..jr...) O0 ~HHH ~000 0 rs} r-.4 H i H ~ · c) > 000000 00000000 CD oo~oo~oo~o~ooo~o~oo 00000000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 o © oo~o~o O0 0 00000000 0~00000 oo~°~ ~000~~ · 0 .... 0 ~oo~O~oo o ~HHH H H~HHH~HO 0 0 0 · 0 C~ H o o~§oo~oo 0 O0 O0 000000000 000000000 O0 ~ 0 ~o~oO~o oo 0 i rJ . o > 0 L~ o~ oo o ooooo o oo oo oooooo ~oo~ oo~o~ ~0 ~0~00 ~0~0 00~ 00000 ~°° HMO .w ~ ° ~ i O~ r..) rj ::,4 r~ ,...] O0 0 rj ~ ~ f.J H O~ H ~0 H D88888 O~ i i o o o o o o o Ix) o o o oo c~ r-q r'-I r-q o o o 0 0 o o oo · · , 00~ 0 00~ 0 ~ 0~ 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 o o o · 0 ~ o o 0~ · 0 ~° ,.-I o oo o ~ 0 ~0 {=2> 0 0 O~ ~j · o > o oooo o o o o c~ o o o o o o o o 0 0 oo o~oo o~o~ ~o~o ~0~ .... 0000 ~0~0 oo§ o o ~q o o o · o o o 0 o o o · o · o o o mm 0 0 rJ . o ~0~ H O~ rJ . o > o o o0o0 oo0o 0o0o 0 o ooo 0 o o oooo oooo oo0o 0 0 o o o · o o~ · o o o 00 u3 · c~ o I--q o~o oo o oo~ ooo oooo oo g 0~ O0 mmm o OH O~ 0~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 }-I kq 0 C~ 00 00 00 C~ C~ 00 00 00 00 C~ og 0 00 C~ ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · . . · C> 03O 0 0 O0 0 ,-~ CO 0 0 00 C~ C~ ~0 ~0 · . ~0 ~0 0oo oo~ ~0 0 0 0 · 0 r"-I 0 O~ H H H o o~ oo 0000 0000 0000 0 00 0 oo 00 o 0 0 0 0 · 0 · CO 0 0 0 0 og 0 00~ ~o~oo 00 00 00 · . ~° ~q · r-q ~ H I~ oo~ 0 0 oh O0~m ~HH 0 ~0 o~ o HO ~:H o o o c~ c~ c~ ooo ooo oooooo oooooo oooooo o gg o o ooo o oo 0 0 o o o · o ~3 · o o · ~ o · 0 cq o ~ o o ~ ~ · , 0'3 r..q ~oo~ o 000 oo~ o mm~o · o · 000000 000000 000000 000000 ~o O~ ~0~ 0 H ~ ~RR~ o o o~ ~r~H~H~IH 0 RRR i O~ ~j · ~D 0 > 0 co 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0000 0000 0000 O0 oo~ 0000 O0 O0 O0 00000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000 0 0 0 000 0~0 o§~oo§oo~§o 0 O0 O0 0 00000000000 ~00~00~0~0~ 0~0~0~0~ 0000~0~000 0 0 0 2:O 0 00000000 00000000 00000000 00 00 00 0 0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000000000000 ~oo ~ oo 0 · 0 · 0 H 00 00 00 · 0 00 · ~ 0 O~ ~ C~ ~00 H H H H Hr,.) ,--3 H O0 0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000 0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000 00 oo~°° 0000000000000000000000000000 o~ooooooooo~oooo~o~oo~o~ o~~ oo~ oo~~ o~°~ ~o~°~ ~o~°~ ~o~ o oo~oo§oo~o~oo~o~o~~ O0 O0 O0 0 O0 ~0 ~ ~J . o o o o g~ o o {2> ~ 00 o~ o o o o o o o~ o o o o o o o ooo ooo 0 0 oo~ o§o oEEoo§oo §ooE 0 O0 O0 O0 00000000 0000 · .... gogggggg ~ ~° '~0 ~0 ~0 ~ .........,... §oo§§oE~oEEo O0 0 ~0 o o · o o Lo ,-I · · o H O~ ~o O~ o~~ o~~ o~ 0 ~RR© o o o o o o o °~ <2> ~ o o o o o {2> o ~ oo o o o o oooo o 120 [13 o o o O0 0 0 o ~o~ 0 000 · · · . · o§ o o · . o o c0 co o ooo~ o o o o o · . · ,-t o o · o o ,-t c0 o · o o 00 o · . o0 12o ooo ooo · . . 00000 ~~o 0 O~ 0 0 O~ ~ H 0 0 0 ITEM NO. 6b DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM WILMA LUCILLE PRYSE AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND The claim from Wilma Lucille Pryse was received by the City of Ukiah on March 17, 2005 and alleges damages from slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk at the corner of Gobbi and Leslie Streets in front of State Farm Insurance on December 3, 2004. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject the claim as stated and refer it to the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject Claim For Damages Received From Wilma Lucille Pryse and Refer It To The Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Claimant Patsy Archibald, Risk Manager/Budget Officer.C2/~t~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Claim of Wilma Lucille Pryse dated March 16, 2005 pages 1-3. Candace Horsley, City Man'~er PA:WPD,ASR Remif Claim Rejections/Pryse '" ~'"~'"~ '~"~"~ x~,v~~~r.~ ~ ~' ?~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ '~ it ~)~ .................... c~t~ c;~k'~ om~. OLA.I~ FOR ~ONEY OR City er Ukiah DAMAGES AGAINST ~oo ~.~ A~. ,, U~i:h, CA 9S.,2 THE CITY OF UKIAH U A claim must bo presen[ed, as pr~cribed by the Govommen[ Code of mcting on his/her behal¢ and shah show U~e If additional space is needed to, provide your inforr~ation, please attach sheets, Jdonli,r¥inq the being answered. 1. Name and ~'~ddress of Ill0 Claimant: Nome of OlaimanE AddreSs: Wflma Lucille Pryse ....... 3.2.0__g~.-Rio-Cour~_J%pt~_. H P.O. Box 1168 Ukia..h.j CA 9.5482 Address to which the person presenting the claim dcsires noticcs Io be sent: Name of Addressee: Marie Maiolo Muchow, Esq. Telephone: Address.; AttorH'~y for' 'Clai~A-nt,; ....... 585 wes~-~o-~l-~~ve~t~~ -~-. R~.C~-~.~ 1 ........... 707/523-7970 The date. place and other circums[ances of Ul¢ occurrence or trsnsoction whicll (.),ave rise lo tho cl2in~ Da[eofO~uffencc: Dec~mber...~, 2004 Time ofOccunence: a~pr.g.X_,__).: Q.O.. a. m Location: sidewalk at the cor~.9~ o~Gobbi & Leslie Street in front.of State C;r'cumsta,lCc~vJ~grisototh[sol~m: Farm InsuranCe, 400 E GObbi St , Ukiah a sprinkler system which failed to drain properly, falling on her '- l~q~'~ wr i ~'. .................................................... ._ 4. General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred .~o f,~r' (~3 it may l}e known ~,j lhe dine of the p;esentalion nY the claim. Claimant fell on her left arm and wrist fracturing her left wrist; s?~6ificall'y dis~al and radial fra6ture~""6~'r"'I~f~""~f~-t- ................. requiring surgery. ' Medic~ expenses 't~-'~e exceed'~D","0U'U]'D-D~· "~azmA'nt h~'~ aisc' iost'-~ime ~rom wO~'~~ 'a wag~---~"'I~-~O~'~-~f ~1'0,000 .~'--~n~.. ~~'l".-~~d"~e-lo~--~re-. 'o~gol'ng. Thc name or names of the pUblic employee Or employees causing the i~ju~, da, nage. or loss, if kr, o~w]. .... ~.~n af ._t~.~e .......... IN 'fl f~NZ.q~..qb!N/ 'NM ~/H4 l-fHf~fFI 4N t tT.q U,,I' ¢~¢':f~n n;~ cn_~n_~i~ READ CARE~ FULLY For a~l 2ceMent, ~Wims, place on the following diagram the name Cf;y of Ukiab vehJc!c: ioc2(}on o( O~(y c,¢ Ukiah v('hk;!e of streets, including North, East. South, and Wes[; ¢fidicate pluoc accident by "A,I" m~d locution Of you~f;~l¢ Or }o~r vOl~k:[o of accidon/by 'X" end by showing house numbers or d~stan~s to time of the accident by "B.~" and ~he point of impact s[ree~ corner=. I[ C~[y 0¢ Ukial~ vehicle was [nvolved, desfgnate by letter "A" location of City or Ukiah vehicle when you ~rst saw il. NOTE: If d[agrar~s below do ne fit tho SituatiOn, att, and ~ 'B" Ioc2don ¢ youtsoit 0¢ your vchiole when you firs( saw p~por dfsgram signed by clnintan(. State Farm // Agency //'co' Leslie St. .X~laim~ CURL{ ~ ........ Fell H~te- SIDEWALK PARKWAY ,SIDEWALK CL~R8 ---% Warning: Presentation of o false claim i~ a f01ony (Penal Code .§72). Jbursuant ~o Cr:fliromia Civit F~odt. cu,-" ~ · ,,,,.., §1.g.38, the City/Agency.may seek to recover all costs o1' dCffr~9 in the event an action is flied which is Ir~tcr delernfinfd not 1o have been brough! in good faith and w[[~ reasonable cause. , ~ Da~e; .... . ...... Page 5 of 3 ~N '~I ~NZ.Cl~.,q~/n) 'NN ~4 I-It~I~N -IN ~.lfN Lbl nf~'f~N flq~ AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 6c DATE: April 20, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR STREET STRIPING 2004, SPECIFICATION NO. 04-09 SUMMARY: Funding for this project was approved in the fiscal year 2004/2005 budget in the amount of $30,000 in account number 100-3110-250-000. The City Council awarded the contract on September 1, 2004 to Safety Striping Service, Inc. of Goshen, CA (contractor) in the amount of $18,071.02. The work of the contract was completed by the contractor in substantial conformance with the approved plans and specifications on March 12, 2005. The final contract cost based on actual street footage striped is $24,859.96. This amount includes approved contract change order work for striping at the airport in the amount of $6,741.96. Final payment of the 10 percent retention will be made to the contractor after 35 days from the date the Notice of Completion is filed with the County Recorder. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Accept the work as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder for Street Striping 2004, Specification No. 04-09. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer~~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Notice of Completion APPROVED:[ ~'~_ ~ace Horsley, City %ager AG-NOC-Spec-04-09.SUM Please return to: CITY OF UKIAH 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482-5400 (707) 463-6200 Attachnmnt # ~. NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: . That the real property described is owned by the following whose address is: City of Ukiah, a Municipal Corporation, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California 95482-5400 . That the nature of the title to the Street Striping 2004, Specification No. 04-09 of all said owners is that of fee simple. . That on the 12th day of March 2005, the Contract work for this project was actually completed. . That the name and address of the Contractor is Safety Striping Service, Inc., PO Box 1020, Goshen, California, 93227. . That the real property herein referred to is situated in the County of Mendocino, State of California, and is described as follows: City-owned property identified as various streets within the City of Ukiah. City Council Approval CITY OF UKIAH, a Municipal Corporation By: DATE Marie Ulvila, City Clerk DATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF MENDOClNO) I, Marie Ulvila, being duly sworn says: That she is the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah City Council, that she has read the foregoing Notice of Completion and knows the content thereof and the same is true of her own knowledge. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Subscribed and sworn before me, Deborah Pollock, Notary Public, this day of ., 2005. Notary Public in and for the County of Mendocino, State of California AGENDA ITEM NO: ~' d" MEETING DATE: April 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE CONTAINED IN DIVISION 4, CHAPTER 1, ENTITLED: "WATER" On April 6, 2005 the City Council voted unanimously to introduce the attached Ordinance amending various sections of the City Code contained in Division 4, Chapter 1, Entitled: "Water" to provide greater clarity and consistent, straightforward language. The Ordinance is ready for adoption. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Ordinance amending various sections of the Ukiah City Code Contained In Division 4, Chapter 1, Entitled: "Water" ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not adopt the Ordinance and provide alternative direction to staff Citizens Advised: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Mike McCann, Finance Director Candace Horsley, City Manager; David J Rapport, City Attorney 1. Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code contained in Division 4, Chapter 1, Entitled: "Water". Approved: Candace Horsley, City M'~ager ATTACHMENT._~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE CONTAINED IN DIVISION 4, CHAPTER 1, ENTITLED: "WATER" The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE The following sections in Division 4, Chapter 1 of the Ukiah City Code are hereby amended to read as follows: §3500 APPLICATION FOR SERVICE: Each applicant for water service shall be required to sign on a form provided by the City, an application which will set forth: A. Date and place of application. B. Location of premises to be served. C. Date applicant will be ready for service. D. Whether the premises have been heretofore supplied with water by the City. E. Purpose for which service is to be used. F. Address to which bills are to be mailed or delivered. G. Such other information as the City may reasonably require. §3501: APPLICATION NOT BINDING FOR LONGER THAN RATE PERIOD: The application is merely a written request for service and does not bind the applicant to take service for a period of time longer than that upon which the rates and minimum charge of the applicable rate resolution are based; neither does it bind the City to service, except under reasonable conditions. §3504: JOINT USE OF WATER SERVICE: Not more than one dwelling shall be served from a single meter, except in the case of multiple dwellings, such as apartment buildings or complexes, hotels, and motels, when specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works based on a determination that service from a single meter will not cause an undue burden or administrative difficulties for the City. ORDINANCE NO. 1 §3516: APPLICABLE RATE ADOPTION BY RESOLUTION: The City Council may, by resolution, adopt and from time to time modify, amend or repeal any of the rates or service charges to be levied, assessed, charged and collected for water service. Applicable rate resolutions shall be maintained in sufficient quantity for distribution to water customers upon request. §3528: SERVICE CHARGES: Service charges shall be as set forth from time to time in the applicable rate resolution adopted pursuant to §3516. SECTION TWO 1. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on April 6, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku None None None Adopted on April 20, 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 2 ITEM NO. 6e DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT:AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH EBA ENGINEERING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $191,109.35 FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERIM CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AT THE CORPORATION YARD AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $149,109.35 SUMMARY: EBA Engineering recently completed an Interim Corrective Action Plan (ICAP) to address the contamination related to the underground storage tanks removed from the corporation yard in July 1997. The ICAP was filed with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). The NCRWQCB responded with a letter dated April 8, 2005 (Attachment 2) accepting the ICAP and requiring the implementation of the ICAP by September 2, 2005. Due to the extent of the contamination plume, and the momentum and cooperation we have achieved with the NCRWQCB, both EBA Engineering and staff recommend proceeding with the work at this time rather than delaying work until the start of the new fiscal year. Staff has filed a claim with the State Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund. In addition, the City has pollution liability insurance coverage for the Corporation Yard. Staff therefore expects full reimbursement of expenses related to this project. Since this work is not included in EBA's current scope of work, staff requested a proposal to complete the additional work. An Amendment (Attachment 1) is included to provide the formal mechanism to complete the implementation of the ICAP. The City's FY 2004~2005 corporation yard budget has savings of $42,000 primarily due to a reduction in the area of contaminated soil excavation. Therefore, a budget amendment in the amount of $149,109.35 in additional funding is required to move forward with this next phase of work. Staff recommends authorization of Amendment Number 10 with EBA Engineering and approval of the budget amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Authorize Execution of Amendment to the Agreement with EBA Engineering in an amount not to exceed $191,109.35 for implementation of the Interim Corrective Action Plan at the Corporation Yard. 2. Approve an amendment to the 2004/2005 budget increasing expenditures in account 100.3301.250.000 by $149,109.35. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Choose not to approve recommended action and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engineer~¢-~)%~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works 1~L Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Amendment No. 10 to the Agreement 2. Letter from NCRWQCB 3. Cost Estimate from EBA Engineering 4. Fiscal Year 2004~2005 Budget Sheet APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City~vlanager RJS: AGebaProfSvcs14 CITY OF UKIAH ~ ~11__ AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES DATED AUGUST 26, 1998 TERMS AND CONDITIONS All terms and conditions of the Agreement for Professional Consulting Services dated August 26, 1998; the Amendment dated December 15, 1998; the Second Amendment dated May 5, 1999; the Third Amendment dated July 5, 2000; the Fourth Amendment dated August 23, 2001; the Fifth Amendment dated September 23, 2002 the Sixth Amendment dated February 27, 2003; the Seventh Amendment dated October 20, 2003; and the Eighth Amendment dated October 4, 2004; and the Ninth Amendment dated February 1, 2005 shall remain in force and effect except as modified by this tenth amendment. AUTHORIZATION Upon execution of this amendment, service provider is authorized to provide the service described under the Scope of Additional Work identified in this Amendment No. 10. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL WORK Work authorized by this amendment shall include that work described in the April 8, 2005 letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and in the April 11,2005 letter proposal from EBA Engineering. Copies of said letters are included in this tenth amendment. COMPENSATION Compensation for the performance of the additional work shall be made on a time and expense basis at Consultant's customary fees. Expenses shall not exceed a maximum total cost of $191,109.35. EBA ENGINEERING CITY OF UKIAH BY: BY: PRINT NAME: TITLE: CANDACE HORSLEY City Manager DATE DATE Amendment No. 10 to Agreement for Professional Consulting Services Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Agency Secretary April 8, 2005 Attachment California Regional Water Quality Control Bo.ard North Coast Region Beverly Wasson, Chairperson http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ 5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A, Santa Rosa, California 95403 Phone: I (877) 721-9203 (toll free) · Office: (707) 576-2220 · FAX: (707) 523-0135 Mr. Richard Seanor City of Ukiah Department of Public Works 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor RECEIVED APR 1 1 2005 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Dear Mr. Seanor: Subject: File: Interim Corrective Action Plan Comments Ukiah City Corporation Yard, 1320 Airport Road, Ukiah, CA, Case No. 1TMC201 · Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) staff has reviewed the Interim Corrective Action Plan (ICAD dated March 2005 prepared by EBA Engineering and the file for the Ukiah City Corporation Yard. Based on this review, Regional Water Board staff concurs with the scope of' work presented in the ICAP. Electronic submittal of the report of field findings and all analytical data must be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board's Geographic Environmental Information Management System database (GeoTracker) as required by Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 30 of the California Code of Regulations in addition to the paper copy. Information on electronic reporting requirements can be obtained on the Intemet by following the "Electronic Submittal of Information" link on the GeoTracker home page at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca, gov/. Please submit the report of field findings for the ICAP along with a Feasibility Study/Corrective Action Plan (FS/CAP) by September 2, 2005. This request for a report of field findings is made pursuant to S~ction 13267(b) of the California Water- Code (CWC). Please notify Regional Water Board staff at least five (5) business days prior to starting the field portions of this work so that the proposed borings and CPT work may be observed. If you have any questions, please call me at (707) 576-2671. Sincerely, Daniel L. W~-~~er~ Environmental Scientist DLW:tab/040805_dlw_UCCY_I 7WorkplanComments.doc California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Mr. Richard Seanor -2- April 8, 2005 cc: Mr. Wayne Briley, Mendocino County Health Dept., 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1326, Ukiah, CA 95482 Mr. Matthew Eamshaw, EBA Wastechnologi~s, 825 Sonoma Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 . California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper i~~;£NGINE£RiNG CIVIL ,P, ENVIFIONMENTAL ENGINEER,~ April I1. 2005 Mr. Rick Seanor Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: COST ESTIMATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAl, SERVICES CITY OF UKIAH CORPORATION YARD UST INVESTIGATION 1320 AIRPORT ROAD, UKIAH, CALIFORNIA EBA Project No. 98.621 Dear Mr. Seanor: Please find enclosed a cost estimate for implementation of EBA Engincering's (EBA) Interim Corrective Action Phm (ICAP) related to the former underground fuel storage tanks at thc Ukiah Corporation Yard. Thc North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) in a letter dated April 5, 2005 approved the ICAP. The following sections include a discussion of the scope of work, a cost estimate summary, assumptions, and conclusions. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work outlined in the ICAP have been subdivided into the following nine phases as listed below: Phase 1: CPT Boring Advancement - In order to determine the lateral and vertical extents of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume, a series et' fourteen soil borings (CPT-I through CPT-14) will be advanced. CPT soil borings CPT-1 through CPT-7 will be advanced for thc purpose of defining the vertical extent of groundwater impacts. Sampling at these locations will specifically target the collection of groundwater samples fi'om an identified second water-bearing zone. CPT-8 through CPT-14, in turn, will be advanced for the purpose of further assessing both the lateral and vertical extent of contaminants in groundwater downgradient (east) of the existing monitoring well network. All of these latter borings are located off-site to the east and therefore will require access agreements prior to implementation of the scope. Phase 2: Extraction/Sparge Well Installation - This phase entails the installation of one groundwater extraction well {EW-I), four Dual-Phase Extraction (DPE)wells (DPE-I through DPE-4): and four ozone sparge points (OS-1 throu,,h OS-4). [ '.~'lP,'41'. '.~.2 Ilk hL'oyp~.' ~! J",llllk ¢a'¢,*~ ¢',i2 ~l}~,, ~,,L~t.d, ~., 82.5 ~.onoma Avenue, ,.quite C I Rosa, California 95z!.04 (707) 544-0784 Also ir', ScmJhern California FAX (707i 544.0866 Phase 3: DPE Feasibility Testing - Phase 3 entails the performance of a five-day DPE pilot test using a tnobile 420 ACFM (actual cubic feet per minute) liquid ring pump (LRP) equipped with a thermal oxidizer to evaluate thc potential [easibility of DPE at the pro. jeer site. lnl:brnmtion from the pilot test will facilitate the development of design parameters t'or associated system components, if applicable. Phase 4: Aquifer Pumping Test - An aquifer-pumping test will be perl'brmed to determine miscellaneous aquifer parameters that can be used for future site characterization and design. Parameters of interest will include hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity. groundwater seepage velocities, capture zone characteristics, and aquifer yield capabilities. Phase 5: Ozone Sparge Testing - The OS pilot test would be accomplished using a 3 standard cubic l'oot per minute (SCFM) oil-less Thomas compressor attached to the spargepoint via a pilot test tool developed by Piper Environmental, Inc (Piper). The purpose of the ozone sparge pilot test is to determine the system pressure necessary to provide an effective radius of influence (ROI) of the injected media. This information, if advantageous to the overall treatment plan. wot, Id be used to establish accurate flow rates l'or subsequent system sizing. Phase6: Reporting - A Feasibility Study Corrective Action Plan (FS/CAP) will be prepared upon completion of all the field work detailed herein. The information collected, analytical results, and conclusions and recommendations will be summarized. Phase7: Quarterly Monitoring and Reporting - Ongoing quarterly monitorin~ and reporting will be provided lbi' the 3~'' and 4th quarter 2005 and 1~: and 2n'~ quarter 2006 moni'~oring evclltS. Phase 8: Water and Soil Disposal - A lump sum amount separated for the disposal of all soil generated as part of Phase 2 and witter generated as part of Phase 7. Water generated during the other phases is included within the cost estimate presented for that specific phase. Phase 9: Additional Monitoring Well Installation - After the completion of Phase 1 (described above), EBA will initiate a review of the data obtained from the CPT boring program for the purpose of assessing the need for additional monitoring wells. EBA has assumed a total of eight additional wells will be necessary as part of this phase. COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Thc estimated cost to implement the above scopes of work is $191,109.35. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimate is attached. ~ · £NGIN~£~ING ASSUMIrFIONS For the purposes of developing the scope of work and thc cost estimate, the following assumptions were made: · Groundwater generated during these activities will not be disposed of through tile City of Ukiah's Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). · Access for installation of CPT borings and additional monitoring wells will be obtained fi'om all property owners. CONCLUSIONS Throughout this project, additional new information may become available. This new information may result in a change in the Scope of Work, wtlich may result in a change in the cost of the prqject. EBA will notify the client when there is a change in the cost and will not proceed without prior approval of the changes from the client. Throughout the project, EBA will make every effort to reduce the cost of tile project by negotiating wilh regulatory agencies to eliminate unnecessary procedures and/or analytical costs. Thank you for allowing EBA this opportunity to perform environmental services for you. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this cost estimate, please contact EBA at (707) 544-0784. EBA will implement this Scope of Work immediately upon your approval. Eno: Detailed Cost Estimate 0 Attachment Attachment # ~IVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS April 11, 2005 Mr. Rick Seanor Department of Public Works City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 COST ESTIMATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF UKIAH CORPORATION YARD UST INVESTIGATION 1320 AIRPORT ROAD, UKIAH, CALIFORNIA EBA Project No. 98-621 Dear Mr. Seanor: Please find enclosed a cost estimate for implementation of EBA Engineering's (EBA) Interim Corrective Action Plan (ICAP) related to the former underground fuel storage tanks at the Ukiah Corporation Yard. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) in a letter dated April 5, 2005 approved the ICAP. The following s~tions include a discussion of the scope of work, a cost estimate summary, assumptions, and conclusions. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work outlined in the ICAP have been subdivided into the following nine phases as listed below: Phase 1: CPT Boring Advancement - In order to determine the lateral and vertical extents of the petroleum hydrocarbon plume, a series of fourteen soil borings (CPT-1 through CPT-14) will be advanced. CPT soil borings CPT-1 through CPT-7 will be advanced for the purpose of defining the vertical extent of groundwater impacts. Sampling at these locations will specifically target the collection of groundwater samples from an identified second water-bearing zone. CPT-8 through CPT-14, in turn, will be advanced for the purpose of further assessing both the lateral and vertical extent of contaminants in groundwater downgradient (east) of the existing monitoring well network. All of these latter borings are located off-site to the east and therefore will require access agreements prior to implementation of the scope. Phase 2: Extraction/Sparge Well Installation - This phase entails the installation of one groundwater extraction well (EW-!), four Dual-Phase Extraction (DPE) wells (DPE-1 through DPE-4); and four ozone sparge points (OS-1 through OS-4). L:~env\ust\621 uldahcorp~cost estimates~costest2005cover.doc 1 825 Sonoma Avenue, Suite C Santa Rosa, California 95404 (707} 544-0784 Also in Southern California FAX (707) 544.-0866 Phase 3: DPE Feasibility Testing- Phase 3 entails the performance of a five-day DPE pilot test using a mobile 420 ACFM (actual cubic feet per minute) liquid ring pump (LRP) equipped with a thermal oxidizer to evaluate the potential feasibility of DPE at the project site. Information from the pilot test will facilitate the development of design parameters for associated system components, if applicable. Phase 4: Aquifer Pumping Test - An aquifer-pumping test will be performed to determine miscellaneous aquifer parameters that can be used for future site characterization and design. Parameters of interest will include hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, groundwater seepage velocities, capture zone characteristics, and aquifer yield capabilities. Phase 5: Ozone Sparge Testing - The OS pilot test would be accomplished using a 3 standard cubic foot per minute (SCFM) oil-less Thomas compressor attached to the spargepoint via a pilot test tool developed by Piper Environmental, Inc (Piper). The purpose of the ozone sparge pilot test is to determine the system pressure necessary to provide an effective radius of influence (ROI) of the injected media. This information, if advantageous to the overall treatment plan, would be used to establish accurate flow rates for subsequent system sizing. Phase 6: Reporting - A Feasibility Study Corrective Action Plan (FS/CAP) will be prepared upon completion of all the field work detailed herein. The information collected, analytical results, and conclusions and recommendations will be summarized. Phase 7: Quarterly Monitoring and Reporting- Ongoing ckuarterly monitoring and reporting will be provided for the 3rd and 4th quarter 2005 and 1st and 2n° quarter 2006 monitoring events. Phase 8: Water and Soil Disposal - A lump sum amount separated for the disposal of all soil generated as part of Phase 2 and water generated as part of Phase 7. Water generated during the other phases is included within the cost estimate presented for that specific phase. Phase 9: Additional Monitoring Well Installation - After the completion of Phase 1 (described above), EBA will initiate a review of the data obtained from the CPT boring program for the purpose of assessing the need for additional monitoring wells. EBA has assumed a total of eight additional wells will be necessary as part of this phase. COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY The estimated cost to implement the above scopes of work is $191,109.35. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimate is attached. L:~env\ust\621 ukiahcorp~cost estimates~costest2005cover, doc ASSUMPTIONS For the purposes of developing the scope of work and the cost estimate, the following assumptions were made: · Groundwater generated during these activities will not be disposed of through the City of Ukiah's Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). · Access for installation of CPT borings and additional monitoring wells will be obtained from all property owners. CONCLUSIONS Throughout this project, additional new information may become available. This new information may result in a change in the Scope of Work, which may result in a change in the cost of the project. EBA will notify the client when there is a change in the cost and will not proceed without prior approval of the changes from the client. Throughout the project, EBA will make every effort to reduce the cost of the project by negotiating with regulatory agencies to eliminate unnecessary procedures and/or analytical costs. Thank you for allowing EBA this opportunity to perform environmental services for you. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this cost estimate, please contact EBA at (707) 544-0784. EBA will implement this Scope of Work immediately upon your approval. Sinc~ere~l~y, ~/I~~G~ INEE~ roject /mc Enc: Detailed Cost Estimate L:~env\ust\621 ukiahcorp~cost estimates~costest2OO5cover, doc ITEM NO. &~ DATE: April ...., 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO LAKE COUNTY ELECTRIC SUPPLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIGHT FIXTURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD FIELD AT THE UKIAH SOFTBALL COMPLEX IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,864. SUMMARY: In 2002, the City of Ukiah was awarded a competitive grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for improvements at the Ukiah Softball Complex. Funding was specifically awarded for the construction of the third softball field including the installation of field lights. In accordance with City of Ukiah purchasing policies, the City's purchasing supervisor issued a request for bid to all known sport field lighting suppliers. Requests were sent to 14 vendors. In addition, a public notice was published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 31st and April 3rd. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid to Lake County Electric Supply for the purchase of sport field light fixtures in the amount not to exceed $18,864. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine the purchase of sport field light fixtures for the construction of the third softball field at the Ukiah Softball Complex is inappropriate at this time and reject all bids. 2. Select an alternate bid from those submitted. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager, Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor N/A APPROVED,: '~dace Horsley, Cityl~x,anager Five companies responded to the request for bid by the April 13 deadline. Refer to the following table for a complete summary of bids. Company Quote Quote w/tax Total with 10% Contin~lency Universal Sports Lighting $14,251.50 $15,285.81 $16,814 Lake County Electric Supply $15,990.00 $17,149.28 $18,864 G.E. Supply CO. $17,000.00 $18,232.50 $20,056 Musco Lighting $33,000.00 $35,392.50 $38,932 Consolidated Electric Distributors No Quote N/A N/A The request for bids indicated that quotes would be evaluated on the following factors: 1. Quality and reliability of product 2. Terms and conditions of warranties 3. Availability of service, pads, and part vendors. 4. Ease of product installation 5. Ease of maintenance 6. Value, defined as degree to which the product meets or exceeds the requirements as cited in this specification. Upon a full comparison of the lighting systems, staff is recommending award of bid to Lake County Electric and Supply. The fixtures offered by Universal Sports Lighting and Lake County Electric and Supply are of equal quality and equivalent to that specified in the request for bid. While Universal Sports Lighting is the apparent Iow bidder, their bid was two fixtures less than the 28 offered by Lake County Electric and Supply. In addition, Lake County Electric and Supply has an office in Ukiah and would be available to respond with ease to installation and warranty issues. Universal Sports Lighting does not have a local supplier and would be servicing warranty issues from their Atlanta office. The immediate availability of onsite technical assistant is extremely important since City staff will be installing the lights. The total purchase amount for the light fixtures will not exceed $18,864 and includes sales tax and a 10% contingency for any unanticipated installation hardware. The cost of the light fixtures will be charged to the 140.6050.800.004 account (Park Development Fund - Softball Complex Renovation Project) and will be reimbursed by the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Nonurbanized Area Need Basis grant. AGENDA ITEM NO: ~'d MEETIN(3 DATE: April 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO TWO ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT POSITIONS In conjunction with the elimination of a management position in the Utilities Department, staff is requesting the modification of two administrative support positions. The management position of Water/Sewer Operations Superintendent (salary range $4714- $5730.67/month) was frozen approximately one year ago, giving the new Utilities Director time to analyze the department's needs. He has since determined that, instead of replacing the same position, his department has a greater need for part-time administrative support. To be efficient, staff is recommending that a full-time position be created that combines the existing part-time administrative support position in the Recreation Department with the clerical support for Utilities. This new position, titled "Receptionist/Clerk," will handle the switchboard and radio responsibilities, currently held by the Receptionist/Secretary in the main building. With the elimination of the management position in the Utilities Department, a savings of approximately $2400 per month is realized by the City. A red-lined copy of the proposed job description is attached for Council's information. (Attachment 1) Because the switchboard and radio responsibilities will be transferred to the new position, the Receptionist/Secretary will be able to provide a higher level of administrative support to Public Works and the Community Services/Assistant RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposed modifications to two administrative support positions. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Discuss and provide alternate direction to staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Shannon Riley, Executive Assistant Shannon Riley, Executive Assistant N/A 1. Redlined job description for Receptionist/Clerk 2. Redlined job description for Receptionist/Secretary Approved:' ¢ Candace Horsley, Ci~Manager Redevelopment Director, both of whom have no dedicated support staff. Because this change involves additional responsibilities and requires a greater amount of experience, an upgrade of approximately 5% in salaries is also proposed. A redlined copy of the Receptionist/Secretary position is provided for Council's information (Attachment 2). Staff is requesting Council's approval for the revision of these two positions. Attachment # .. ,//,,, Job Description RECE PTI ON i ST/,C__L_E RK .......................... { De,~.: DEFINITION Under general supervision, to perform main switchboard operation and varied clerical and word processing work; to type from a variety of sources; and to perform related work as required. Serves as the Receptionist for the ~_n_nex 0f' _t_h_9 U k!a_h___ci_v!_c__~e__nt_e_r_. ........................ ~ Deleted: administrative wing EXAMPLE OF DUTES: (These examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed. The examples of work performed are neither restricted to nor all- encompassing of the duties to be performed under this job title.) (E-Essential Duty; M=Major Portion of Time) - Answers the main switchboard and routes calls or takes messages as appropriate. (E, M) - Greets the public and directs inquiries to appropriate City personnel (E, M) - Performs a variety of clerical and word processing work related to the function to which assigned. (E, M) - Operates two-way radio to communicate with City field crews. (E, M) ; Typ_es a var_!ety_of l e t _t _e _r s_ ,_ reP_o_rt_ S_,__mio_u_te_s, rec__o__rds, __me_mora_n_da, sta_t!stica!_tables _o_r ............ f Deleted:- Coordinates rental of City other documents from rough draft, clear copy, or dictating machine. L facilities with citizens and other agencies. (E,M)¶ - Composes routine correspondence. - Receives and coordinates the routinq of special event permit applications. - Assembles and reviews information from various sources for records and reports. ; Maintains insurance certificate files for Risk Manager. _(_E)_ ...... ..... f Deleted:- Computes and extends : An-swers i~q~ies~2~j~r~i~-p~r~c~d~j~s~a.n~j~i~i~`~¢~rs~i~i~g~p~ies~th~ ( figures.¶ proper office as appropriate. (E) - Maintains mailing and distribution lists and current general departmental information. (E) - Uses telephone and other communication equipment in a well modulated voice, using good English grammar. (E) - Operates computer, and other office eguip_ment to produce a variety of _. { Deleted:, reports, records,correspondence,- ............................................................................. and memoranda. ::--ii.{ Deleted: word processor, - Requisitions supplies. - Performs special projects as directed. (E) Performs related work as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Office and telephone procedures and practices. Customer relations and service skills. Microsoft Office software (Word, Excel, Publisher, PowerPoint) and basic office equipment. Ability to: - Handle numerous activities at once (i.e., phone calls, radio calls, receives visitors) effectively and pleasantly. Perform clerical work involving the use of independent judgment and requiring speed and accuracy. - Type accurately at a speed of 45 words per minute (typing certificate required at time of application). - Use good written and verbal skills, using good English grammar and diction. - Converse in basic Spanish as needed to communicate with customers (preferred). - Maintain security of confidential information. EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Any combination of graduation from high school and ,thr_ee yea_r_s___o__f__c!e_r_i_c__a!__a_n_d_,customer .- .... {.m~eted= one year service is required. Word processing, telephone experience and bilingual abilities are ..... t Deleted:typingexperience preferred. PROBATIONARY PERIOD Employees serve a six-month probationary period. If performance is not satisfactory, an employee may be terminated without cause and recourse during this time. VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT Attachment # RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY (Typing Certificate Demonstrating 55 NWPM Proficiency Required at Time of Application) DEFINITION Under general supervision, to perform ,varied difficult and complex secretarial and office assistance for various ..... I Deleted: main switchboard operation administrative departments; and perform i-e-i~iecl ~v0~ ~s ~e-q~ji-r~l-.--s-e~-e~-~-ih~-F~e~;e~i~is-t-~)-r-~h-e-~mi~-i~(~- --~ and wing of the Ukiah Civic Center. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES: (These examples are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work performed. The examples of work performed are neither restricted to nor all encompassing of the duties to be performed under this job title.) (E=Essential Duty; M=Major Portion of Time) ,- Receive visitors and tel _ep_ hone inquiries, direct thej:)ublic and others, and furnish desired information whenever ..... ~ Deleted:-. Answer the main .... p0ssibi~, (E~M-~ ........................................................................... / switchboard and route calls or take - Assist departments with and produce a variety of projects, reports, meeting minutes, correspondence, bid (messagesasappropdate.(E,M)¶ specifications, requests for proposals, public notices, records and similar material independently and from drafts, dictating equipment, and clean copy. (E,M) ; When assigned, undertake and carry_ forward a variety_ of proj_ects reguiring indep_endentjudgment and initiative ....... { Deleted:-. Operate a two-way radio -(E) ........................................................................ ,-_ Take and transcribe day and evening meeting minutes in summary__ form under a flexible work week schedule, t to(E.M)¶communicate with City field crews. (E) .......................... t' Deleted: -, Make arrangements for meetings and coordinate rental of City - Maintain security of confidential information. (E) facilities and Banner Program with - Maintain insurance certificate files for Risk Manager. (E) citizens and other agencies. (E,M)¶ - Maintain mailing and distribution lists and current general departmental information. (E) - Requisition supplies. - Perform related work as assigned. - Establish and maintain proiect and confidential files. - Maintain records in such a manner so as to adhere to leqal timeframes. QUALIFICATIONS Knowled_~e of: Customer relations and service skills. Standard office clerical procedures, with emphasis on correct English grammar and spelling, with emphasis on correct English grammar and spelling. - Composition standards Standard formats for reports, records, minutes, and correspondence. Microsoft Office software (Word, Excel, Publisher) and basic office equipment. Ability to: Handle numerous activities at once (i.e., phone calls, radio calls, receive visitors), effectively and pleasantly. Perform responsible and difficult office assistance work, requiring the use of independent judgment, speed, accuracy, and good English grammar. - Work under pressure to meet established guidelines. - Type accurately at a speed of 55 words net words per minute. (Certificate required at time of application). - Have shorthand, speedwriting, or sufficient typing speed capable of recording action minutes of meetings. - Prepare correspondence independently. - Perform responsible and difficult office assistant work. - Organize and maintain files. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. - Converse in basic Spanish as needed to communicate with customers (preferred). Work flexible hours. EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION Any combination of graduation from high school and,four (4)years of responsible secretarial/clerical experience ...... { Delete: two (2) Switchboard experience preferred. - SPECIAL REQUIREMENT Possession of a valid Class C California Driver's License. PROBATIONARY PERIOD Employees serve a six-month probationary period. If performance is not satisfactory, an employee may be terminated without cause and recourse during this time. APPLICATIONS Applications must be filled out completely and received by the Personnel Department by 5:00 p.m. on the final filing date. Resumes are encouraged, but cannot be accepted in lieu of an official application unless specified. All statements made on applications are subject to investigation and verification. False statements will be cause for disqualification, removal from the Eligibility List, or discharge from employment. SELECTION Applications will be reviewed by a screening committee and those applicants who appear to be among the best qualified will be selected for the examination process. This process may include a variety of techniques designed to test applicants' knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job. An Eligibility List will be established by ranking candidates by their overall score and a selection will be made from the candidates on this list. All employment offers are subject to a City-paid physical examination, drug screen, and thorough reference and background investigation. ,' ,' , , City of Ukiah is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability or madtal status. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if special accommodations are necessary at any stage of the testing process, please notify the Personnel Department in advance at (707) 463-6244 so your request may be reviewed pdor to the occurrence of testing. RECEP.doc 6/03 Deleted: SALARY~ $ 2,310-$2,808 per month, plus medical, dental, vision, and life insurance coverage, paid holidays, vacation, and sick leave. The City of Ukiah is a member of the Public Employees Retirement S~stem (PEGS), 2% at 55 retirement plan; the employee's 7% contribution is included in the base salary and is paid by the employee. * The City also provides a portion of the employee's salary in flex plan dollars to be utilized as determined by the employee. Credit Union membership and a deferred compensation program are also available.¶ · The PEgS Retirement benefit will increase to 2.7% in October 2003.¶ FILING DATE¶ Submit a completed City of Ukiah application form, including applicable certificates, to the Personnel Office, 300 Seminary Avenue, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 17, 2003. Applications received after the deadline or incomplete applications will not be considered. ¶ AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. DATE: April 20, 2005 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND, CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FY 04/05. SUMMARY: Assembly Bill 3229, signed into law in 1996, established the Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. This bill yearly appropriates monies for use in augmenting law enforcement agencies. Originally this bill contained a sunset clause, which was removed in 2001, prior to the current state budget crisis. Because of the state budget crisis, and the impacts to local and county government, this funding has remained in question in the state budget since that time. This money was originally granted to law enforcement agencies from state of California's surplus funds. Other grant funding developed while the state experienced a large surplus (CLEEP, CLETEP) similar to these SLESF funds has already been cut from the state budget. As has been discussed at previous Council Meetings and Budget Hearings, staff has been conservative in their planning on all future grant funding sources because of the state budget deficit, the legislators original source of surplus funding for this program and the others, and the state legislators need to reduce appropriations in future budgets. In the past, council has authorized these funds for the purchase of records management software, computers, digital cameras, used detective vehicles, portable alcohol testing units, hostage crisis equipment, summer intern assistance, and equipment for our evidence facility. During this last fiscal year,' the council authorized funding for remodeling of the department's work areas, use-of-force training equipment, and part-time assistance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Hold Public Hearing for the COPS Grant FY 2004/05. 2. Authorize departmental spending plan for FY 2004/2005 SLESF Grant. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Provide staff with alternate direction. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Ukiah Police Department Prepared by: Chris Dewey- Police Captain Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and John Williams, Police Chief Attachments: None APPROVED: Candace H'orsley, Cit~anager PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND, CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FY 04/05. The money, as outlined in Government Code Section 30061 - 30065, must be used exclusively in the support of front line police services. As noted in the government code; 1. These moneys shall supplement existing services, and shall not supplant any existing funding for law enforcement services provided by that entity. 2. A public hearing is required. 3. A yearly report will be filed with the Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee. . Funds received shall be expended or encumbered no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year, and agencies that do not meet this requirement shall remit unspent SLESF moneys to the state. Departmental Spending Plan 2004~2005 Funding: For this funding, staff recommends four purposes. 1. Part-time Evidence Technician 2. Part-Time Front Office Assistance 3. Transcription Services 4. Patrol Equipment and Computer Equipment Upgrades Part-Time Evidence Technician Historically, the department has employed a part-time evidence technician to manage the department evidence related functions. When the department moved from our old evidence facility to the new evidence facility a Police Sergeant was reassigned to oversee and manage the move into the new evidence facility. This reassignment was required to oversee an evidence room audit, and the department's bar coding and evidence management software system upgrade. This transition into the new facility is now complete, and the Sergeant assigned to this position will be retiring at the beginning of May. The department desires to reassign this function to a part-time evidence technician and move the sworn officer position back to the patrol staff. This part-time position will work approximately 20 hours per week, managing the department's evidence related functions. The department plans on budgeting $20,000 dollars for this position and related equipment expenses. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND, CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FY 04/05. Part-Time Front Office Assistance Last fiscal year one of our front office personnel positions was frozen as a cost saving measure. To assist in the front office, the department began a part-time front office intern program, using funding from this grant program. This new program has been highly successful in introducing younger adults to police work and our department, while helping our existing staff with the workload in the front office area. The department recruited, and is currently employing a bi-lingual Mendocino College student part-time in the capacity. This intern has become fully trained in Police Report processing, District Attorney and Court Records procedures, Data Entry, and Livescan Fingerprint procedures, and plans to stay with the department through the 2005/2006 college term. This part-time position's hours vary depending upon the department's workload. The department plans on budgeting $20,000 dollars for this position and related equipment expenses. Transcription Services Funding for our transcription services has for the past few years been received from a Federal Block Grant program. Funding in this Federal program has been discontinued, and available funding will end in August of this year. Our transcriptions services program is a highly successful and critical program for the department. This program has proven to be highly effective in reducing officer report preparation time, and increase officer availability. Because officers patrol time has been increased dramatically through the use of transcription services, the department desires to continue this program by shifting funding for this program to this grant program. Since 1997, Jennie Martin-Gall, ("Transpositions") has been providing transcription services for the Ukiah Police Department. During this time period, Transpositions has developed a vast number of capabilities, to meet the required specifications by the department from an outside vendor. 1. Clearance to transcribe confidential criminal and internal investigations from the Ukiah Police Department, District Attorney's Office, Public Defenders Office and the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office. 2. Software development of UPD report formats. 3. Development of computer resources to connect and work within the Ukiah Police Department's computer network using secure communications. 4. Advanced training in Criminal Investigation formats and reporting standards. 5. Completed training in the use and maintenance of the Department's computerized records management systems. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NOTIFICATION OF AWARD OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND, CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FY 04/05. 6. Establishment of the Ukiah Police Department's arrested person database, and maintenance of the system. 7. Maintenance of a current Professional Liability Occurrence Insurance Policy The Police Department has negotiated a monthly compensation of $1,666.66 (average hourly rate of $20.83, with a maximum of 20 hours per week) for this service with our transcription provider. Transcription services within our area currently range from $27.00 per hour and above, with transcriptionists charging a "by word or by line" fee. The department plans on budgeting $20,000 dollars for the continuation of this program using this grant program. Patrol Equipment and Computer Equipment Upgrades The remaining funding ($40,000) from this grant, the department desires to reserve for potential upgrades of existing equipment. Over the years, the department has purchased a number of complex equipment systems using grant funding. These systems include our Records Management and Computerized Dispatch computer servers, computer work stations, digital camera systems for patrol officers, radar equipment, and 911 and telephone recording equipment. All of these systems are now well past their intended life span and the department has experienced equipment failures of these critical systems. Over the next year the department plans to evaluate the most critical replacement needs in these areas and begin a replacement program for this equipment. The Department, as is required, will seek competitive bids in each area where replacement equipment is needed, and present to council a complete report on the equipment replacement program and bid analysis on each proposed replacement option during each portion of the replacement plan. Spending Plan Summary For this funding, staff recommends the four purposes discussed be approved for the SLESF Grant program for FY 2004/2005 funding. 1. Part-time Evidence Technician 2. Part-Time Front Office Assistance 3. Transcription Services 4. Patrol Equipment and Computer Equipment Upgrades AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO: 8b DATE: April 20, 2005 REPORT SUB.1ECT: DTSCUSSI'ON AND ACTTON ON KRAUSS/TOMS APPEAL OF PLANNI'NG COMMI'STSON CONDTTI'ONAL APPROVAL OF THE MARI'N VENTURES/WALGREENS STORE ON EAST PERKI'NS STREET SUMMARY: On March 23, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a lengthy public hearing, and after considerable dialog, adopted a Negative Declaration and conditionally approved a Site Development Permit for a Walgreen's Store on East Perkins Street. Two speakers at the public hearing who opposed the project, Mr. Albert Krauss and Mr. Michael Toms filed timely appeal to the Commission's action, expressing concerns about the retail use, traffic, and the loss of the redwood trees. This Agenda ]:tem is intended to provide a public hearing for the City Council, appellants, applicants, Staff, and other interested citizens to discuss the project, and for the Council to consider and act on the appeal filed by Mr. Krauss and Mr. Toms. BACKGROUND: Last fall, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the issuance of a Demolition Permit for the buildings located at 508/510 East Perkins Street. Tn taking this action, the Council agreed with the Demolition Permit Review Committee, that the property had significant historical context, and that any future redevelopment of the site should incorporate architectural characteristics of the railroad/industrial setting of the area. The Council also adopted mitigation measures that required future development to incorporate an historical "story-board'; and that the buildings are photographed for the record. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED AC'F[ON: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Take action on the appeal ALTERNATZVE COUNCTL POL:ECY OPTZON: N/A Citizens Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Albert Krauss and Michael Toms Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Appeal letter filed by Albert Krauss and Michael Toms Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 23, 2005 Planning Commission minutes, dated March 23, 2005 Letter from Judy Pruden submitted to the Planning Commission, dated March 16, 2005 APPROVED: ~. ~-~~.,~~ Candace Horsley, City M ger PRO3ECT DESCRZPTZON: The proposed project includes the construction of a 14,409 square foot Walgreen's store located near the center of the site, with parking on three sides, a pharmacy drive- thru lane on the northern side, and a loading area on the west side. Landscaping will be added to the eastern and southern perimeter areas, and in a larger planter area along the northern perimeter. Architectura/De$(q~ The proposed building will be approximately 23 feet high, with a 30-foot high tower on its southwest corner. ]:ts walls will be constructed with concrete masonry walls covered by stucco, with tile roofing over the tower roof and a canopy roof that will extend along the entire southern building elevation and approximately three-quarters of the eastern and western building faces. A smaller canopy roof will be constructed on the northern portion of the building to cover the proposed drive-through pharmacy lane. Parkin_q: The proposed retail use is required to provide one parking stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, or a total of 48 stalls for the 14,409 square foot store. The applicants are proposing 64 stalls, including 56 standard-size stalls, 4 compact-size stalls, and 4 handicapped-size stalls. Land$capinq:The conceptual Landscape Plan submitted with the project shows that the redwood tree on the northeast corner of the site will be the only one retained, with the other redwoods to be removed to accommodate the proposed Hospital Drive driveway, parking spaces, and new plantings of deciduous trees. These redwood trees are proposed to be replaced by a rather dense planting of trees, groundcovers, and other smaller plants distributed throughout the proposed perimeter planting areas and in smaller planter areas located between parking stalls. Proposed trees include Chinese Pistache, Raywood Ash, and Holly Oak species. Li_qhtin_q: A relatively detailed conceptual lighting plan shows the location of proposed light standards and the lighting patterns for the proposed development, and it appears the project will not cause significant adverse lighting impacts. However, the Planning Commission required that a Final Lighting Plan be submitted before a Building Permit is issued to ensure that the final lighting patterns, intensities of light, and other lighting factors are consistent with "dark sky" guidelines for reducing lighting to levels required for security, without excess lighting spilling onto abutting lots or into the night sky. PRO.1ECT ]:SSUES AND PLANN]:NG COI~It4]:SS:]:ON AC'I3:ON: The applicants met with Staff before preparing plans to discuss the design requirements of the Demolition Permit review process, the City Commercial Development Design Guidelines, and the goals and policies of the General Plan Community Design Element. Throughout the review process, there was a continual dialog about the important issues associated with the project. These issues included building design, traffic, airport compatibility, drainage, sewer capacity, and the redwood trees along the east side of the property (these issues are discussed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report). After gaining an understanding of the City's requirements and acknowledging that the project site was situated along a "Gateway" entrance to the City and its important downtown area, the applicants designed their project. The first attempts at project design were not acceptable to Staff. The site planning, architecture, and approach to landscaping did not, in Staffs opinion, fulfill the direction given during the Demolition Permit review process, or reach consistency with the Commercial Development Design Guidelines or General Plan. After several months of discussion, a number of attempts to redesign, and the submittal of additional technical information, the applicants submitted a project that Staff concluded fulfilled the direction given during the Demolition Permit review process, or was consistent with the Commercial Development Design Guidelines and General Plan. In terms of design, the applicants incorporated columns and canopy roof lines that matched those on the Depot building to the south. They also designed a mansard roof for the tower to match the roof of the depot building. The "scoring" on the west elevation also mimics the shape of the mansard roof lines. Planning Commissioner .ludy Pruden, who was not in attendance at the meeting, provided the Commission with additional suggestions for the design, which the Commission did not specifically incorporate into its action (Attachment No. 5). Staff remains supportive of Commissioner Pruden's suggestions, and encourages the Council to seriously consider them. After conducting a public hearing in which considerable testimony was provided in opposition to the project, the Planning Commission concluded that many of the issues were related to the retail use of the building rather than the architectural, site planning, and environmental issues its discretion was limited to. The Commission found that the design of the building incorporated railroad/industrial setting architectural features that appeared to meet the intent and direction of the Demolition Permit Review Committee and City Council when they approved the Demolition Permit, and that based on the factual information presented, the required findings could be made to conditionally approve the project The Planning Commission also concluded that the project was consistent with the Commercial Development Design Guidelines and the goals and policies contained in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, the Commission conditionally approved the project on a 4-0 vote (Pruden absent). THE KRAUSS/TOMS APPEAL: Mr. Albert Krauss and Mr. Michael Toms filed an appeal of the Commission's action to bring the project before the City Council for a final decision. Tn their appeal letter, they expressed concerns about the type of retail use, traffic and circulation, and the loss of the redwoods trees on the site. The Reta# Use: The appellants expressed concern about locating a Walgreens store so close to the downtown, and that doing so would limit the City's ability to create an attractive downtown center for people to enjoy. They suggest that such a land use is better suited in the Airport Industrial Park rather than on East Perkins Street. They suggest further that the City may want to consider a different vision for the downtown; perhaps one that would not include chain retailers. Response: For at least twenty years, the subject properly and most of the East Perkins Street corridor, as well as the downtown core has been zoned "light" or "community commercial." This designation allows new retail land uses with the securing of a Site Development Permit, which by code evaluates the site planning, architecture, parking, and landscaping of a project. No Use Permit is required for a retail land use in this area. The discretion of the decision makers is limited to the site development issues listed above. The Code does not allow the decision makers to deny a Site Development Permit for a retail land use in this zoning district just because it is a retail land use. However, while it is inappropriate to deny the Walgreen's retail use without the proper regulatory tools in place, Staff is supportive of a community discussion regarding this issue. Tt may be time for the community to reexamine the 1992 Downtown Master Plan and 1995 General Plan Community Design Element to determine if the vision for the downtown established in those public planning efforts is still desired and appropriate. Trafficand C/rcu/at/on: The appellants express concern that the analysis of traffic did not consider the coming energy crisis and the possibility that train transport may return to the area. They believe that this could change the traffic circulation pattern in the immediate area of the project site. Response: While this comment is quite speculative, Staff acknowledges that the close proximity of the project site to the railroad tracks could potentially affect traffic if the trains return. However, regardless of whether or not a Walgreens is constructed on the site, traffic will back up on Perkins Street if a train runs through the City. ]:t did before when the trains were running, and it will again if they return. Nevertheless, the City Engineer did consider the potentiality of the trains running again and what affect this would have on traffic circulation in light of the proposed project. The major concern of the City Engineer was left hand turns into the site from eastbound traffic. As a result, a mitigation measure disallowing this movement was imposed on the project. The applicants have also agreed to financially participate in the emerging traffic impact fee program for vacant and underutilized parcels that when developed, would contribute to the cumulative impacts at various identified intersections. In addition, the applicants and Staff are exploring the possibility of making improvements to the Perkins Street/Hospital Drive intersection that would accompany the project. While these improvements are technically not necessary for the project, the applicants have expressed an interest in developing a partnership with the City and Ukiah Valley IVledical Center to provide these improvements with the project to increase pedestrian safety. The Planning Commission relied on the Traffic Study, City Engineer conclusions, and its own empirical observations to conclude that even though the project would generate additional traffic, as mitigated, it would not violate the traffic capacity thresholds established in the adopted General Plan. The Redwood Trees: The appellants express concern that the project would result in the removal of the redwood trees on the project site adjacent to Hospital Drive. Response: One of the first issues raised by Staff before the applicants even attempted designing the project was the potential loss of the existing redwood trees. Staff shared the Landscaping and Streetscape Design Guidelines and Community Forest Management Plan with the applicants. While Staff realized that these redwood trees were not old-growth or native to the valley floor, or particularly suitable in a dense urban environment, our goal was to have the applicants explore the possibility of incorporating them into the design of the project. The applicants initially responded that the trees were located where parking spaces were planned. They also expressed concern about limbs dropping and public safety. Staff normally encourages projects to be designed to incorporate existing trees, but in this case, we became concerned about the shallow rooted redwood species and their location in close proximity to a number of existing buildings, including the proposed structure. The trees are also situated along the east side of the property where they cause large areas of year-round morning shade and therefore prohibit solar access to any development on the site. Additionally, Staff shares the concern about dropping limbs, and the possibility that the tree could fall during storms or other high-wind events. Regardless, the applicants did revise their Landscaping Plan to retain the one redwood tree in the northeast corner of the site. The Planning Commission considered these issues, as well as the concerns expressed by members of the public to save the trees, it concluded that the redwood trees were not an ideal tree for a dense urban environment, and that the Landscaping Plan submitted for the project would provide a more balanced collection of trees and shrubs consistent with the scope and scale of the project. The Commission did not impose a condition to preserve the remaining redwood trees. CONCLU$]:ON: The Planning Commission conditionally approved a Site Development Permit for a 14,409 square foot Walgreen's store on East Perkins Street. The size of the store would be less than one-third the size of the Safeway grocery store located at the corner of South State and Gobbi Streets. The Commission considered a number of important issues, and heard vocal opposition from a number of people in attendance at the public hearing. However, the Commission understood its discretionary authority when considering Site Development Permits, and concluded that while the "use" may be objectionable to many, it was not before them for consideration. The Commission concluded that the architecture, site planning, parking, landscaping and environmental issues had been satisfactorily resolved, and it made the findings of fact to adopt the IVlitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the project on a 4-0 vote. The appellants disagree with the Commission's decision. They have raised issues that were discussed by the Planning Commission, but they disagree that those issues have been resolved. The Council must conduct a public hearing to consider the appeal and hear from the applicants and public. After the public hearing, if the Council agrees with the Commission's action, it can deny the appeal. If, however, the Council disagrees with the Commission's decision, it could modify the Commission's decision or make different findings of fact, support the appeal, and deny the project. RECOI~II~IENDA'I'~ON: After the conduct of a public hearing, move to: 1. Agree with the Planning Commission's action and deny the appeal; OR 2. Support the appeal in part, and modify the Commission's action; OR 3. Disagree with the Commission's decision, make different findings, and deny the project. I c- Tuesday Mm-ch 29, 2005 866 South Dora Street URial%, CA 95482 To: Ukiah City Council From: Albert Krauss, lV~chael Toms two pages M ,R 2 9 2005 -- CITY OF UKIAH __ CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT We the undersigned, who attended the URiah Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 2005, request that the URiah City Council place on their agenda reconsideration of the basis for approval of the Walgreen's project on East Perkins Street. We allege that there are several issues which were dealt with in a summary, incomplete manner, as well as some additional factors not even touched upon by the staff in their report to the Commission. Item #1: In discussion of the traffic component, there is an overlooked scenario which would impact this project. In the likely event of a sooner than later energy crisis, two existing initiatives to activate the railroad may be accelerated: a local one to piggy back trucks and renew freight transport in addition to tourism - and a Bay area initiative to bring light rail service north to Cloverdale. The twain may be conjoined and funded as a major adjunct to North Bay corridor transport. The whole railroad depot component of downtown may take on a different emphasis, including the traffic circulation pattern in the immediate vicinity of the Walgreen's proposed project. Item #2: The urban forest guidelines are being stretched to gloss over the fact that Redwood trees of the size of those along Hospital Drive are much more valuable in their current state than any conceivable replacement, in terms of value per year of lead time in growing significant tree canopy. Additionally, fast growth deciduous junk trees are no replacement for the unique character of these signature trees, whose momentum is just now reaching stride. A similar issue was resolved around the Albertson's expansion, when a plan to increase parking space was supposed to be the rationale for cutting established shade trees. Those trees were preserved after much citizen input on the subject. The developers had to yield to mandated public pressure. What has changed? The memories here? It is not historically established that redwood trees were never part of the valley flora because of insufficient climatological support. And whether they were or not, this is not the urban forest prerequisite. If we cut mature trees every time a project is designed, to replace them with small infant trees, we'll never arrive at a desired point, arboreally speaking. Item #3: But the overarching component that was glossed over concerns the nature of the downtown core and immediate surrounds, its community character, and its desired ultimate mix of activities. If this has been insufficiently addressed in any formal sense through the general plan, or if the boundaries of the "downtown" leave something to be desired, then commitments such as the proposed project should be put on hold until the appropriate definitions and components are examined and decided upon. Just as an example, the term "retail" is an altogether too broad generic category to encompass the refinement that a downtown plan should incorporate. If the people of UI<iah, in some less stressed time than our own, were given a chance to visualize what they would most like to be placed in or near their city center, those visions might range from a multi media live arts center, or a downtown educational institution, or less threateningly for the taxophobes, to an arcade emporium housing many small crafts and other assorted businesses and Attachment /" / two pages therapeutic of~ces - downtown possibly being a more suitable location for that than similar arcades being projected for industrial park, which in turn, might be where Walgreen's should go - We need a way to draw people into an attractive downtown center which serves to elevate their sense of belonging, rather than providing yet another funnel for feeding the people boxes of detergent and soon to be made more expensive throw away electrical gadgets from China... IN CONCLUSION This city does not have to be in '~rush" mode. We are not subject to the agendas of corporations anxious to get their toeholds in place, nor to the opportunistic urgency of a man who is tired of his ownership - and who has found a rapacious savior from Matin County to bail him out. We have, as a community, the right to deliberation. It is not the job of planning staff to go an extra mile to cheerlead approvals of projects which meet the technical requirements of the city's codes. It is one thing to require aesthetic components, but it is very much another matter to '~horse trade" with applicants in advance of hearings in exchange for a cheerleadlng session by staff before the Planning Commission. Just because staff have reached a friendly tone of commtmication with prospective developers does not make us beholden to the "graciousness" of anyone (read the minutes for Mr. Stump's comment). We as a community reserve our right to examine carefully the ways in which we are going to balance economic pressure with our own general well being. No matter how you slice it, a downtown Walgreen's will corrupt for a very long time the downtown concept, as unformulated as that may be. If we continue along the path indicated by the Wlagreen's project, URiah will have chosen to walk away from the possibility of evolving into an internationally known small town mecca for people who want something different from the Cotatis and Vallej os of the North Bay. Instead, we will become a corridor clone in a swamp of sameness. At the very least, we must better define the zone of protection for our town core, thereby insulating it by preserving these contiguous areas for much better things. Respectfully, Mlfha~foms' ' ~ ....... PS Although not immediately germane to the issues put forth in this appeal, there is a problem with a notification process which considers landowners the only important recipients of notices involving processes such as demolition permits - at the very least, involved parties like tenants, either in subject properties or adjacent ones, should be included. This, of come, would be a policy recommendation from the City Council to the Planning Commission. Attachment MARIN VENTURES- WALGREENS MA3OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2005 FINDINGS: The following findings were made by the Planning Commission: , The proposed commercial development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City General Plan since the proposed building and other site development would be consistent with the criteria for new development on lands in the Commercial land use designation and with pertinent design criteria spelled out in the Community Design Element of the Plan; . The proposed commercial development is consistent with the applicable design standards of the C- 1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District and the design guidelines applicable to development projects outside the Downtown Design District; . The proposed commercial development is consistent with the density, open space, and other compatibility criteria for the B-2 infill area north of the airport, as listed in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan; . The location, size and intensity of the proposed commercial development, as conditioned, will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern since the traffic study done for the project indicates that the traffic volumes created by the commercial use of the property will not increase traffic to volumes that warrant substantial improvements to existing streets or intersections, and pedestrian traffic will be able to reach the site on existing public sidewalks that connect to dedicated on-site pedestrian walkways; . The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses since the site will utilize driveway entrances, on-site circulation and drive- through lanes, and parking lot layouts that are consistent with the Parking Standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code; o Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the proposed commercial building and appurtenant facilities from the street and adjoining buildings and for breaking up and screening the paving in the parking lot and access lanes for the site; , The proposed commercial building will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property or on other properties in the neighborhood since the building will be constructed in a centralized location on the property and is not high enough or large enough to cast substantial shadows onto abutting lands; . The proposed commercial building will not have a substantial detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district since the abutting lands are all zoned for commercial uses; . The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features since the only feature consists of Redwood trees that will be replaced with landscape trees that are more appropriate to commercial development in a high-use urban setting; Attachment Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions 10. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the commercial building and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like and uninteresting appearance due to the use of building walls with insets, projections, columns, and canopy structures at varied heights, as well as design features and building materials that are consistent with those in use on the existing structure and structures on abutting lots; and 11. The proposed commercial building will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts if the mitigation measures/conditions of approval included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the project are adopted. CONDI'DIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59 (Marin Ventures/Walgreens), shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid: , All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission, and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including maps, sketches, renderings, building elevations, landscape plans, and alike, but in no way limit any use allowed under the current C-1 zoning classification. . Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission. . In addition to any particular condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued. 4. Applicant shall be required to obtain and maintain any permit or approval, which is required by law, regulation, or ordinance, be it required by Local, State, or Federal agency. . Pursuant to Ukiah Municipal Code Section 9263, approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-four (24) consecutive months. Pursuant to Section 9263, the applicants may seek a one (1) year renewal of the Site Development Permit if after twenty-four (24) months the approved project has not been established. . Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. In no way does this condition limit any use allowed under the current C-1 zoning classification. Attachment # Z "Z.- Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions 1 Si 1 Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall detail the right turn in (from westbound East Perkins Street) and right turn out only from the site onto westbound East Perkins Street movement. A "pork chop" right turn in only median design at the encroachment or other design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be detailed on the plans. The "Pork Chop" shall be a Iow mounded concrete structure providing visible deterrent preventing left turns off Perkins into the site but shall allow delivery vehicles the ability to drive over such structure to exit the site on to Perkins Street in a design acceptable to the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicants shall pay a cumulative traffic impact fee of $7,888.00 to mitigate the projects' cumulative contribution of traffic into key nearby intersections. The applicant shall dedicate the 10-foot wide portion of the subject property's Perkins Street frontage to the City of Ukiah consistent with other previous Perkins Street dedications to the City of Ukiah as part of the right-of-way for East Perkins Street. This dedication shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the commercial building. 10. All curb cuts for driveways onto the project site shall be developed in accordance with Public Works standards and shall be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits for site preparation or construction. 11. All curbs, gutters, and sidewalk that are in disrepair shall be repaired in a manner that conforms to City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102, or as otherwise required by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. 12. Street trees shall be planted five feet behind the sidewalks that front East Perkins Street and Hospital Drive. These trees should be no greater than 30 feet from each other, but the tree species and exact locations of these trees shall be approved as part of the Final Landscape Plan for the project, and shall be maintained by the site developer or future owners as part of the overall landscaping for the property consistent with the Final Landscaping Plan approved for the project. 13. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all work done within the public roadway easements adjacent to the site. All such work shall be done by a licensed contractor and an estimate of all estimated construction costs shall be submitted to the Public Works Director/City Engineer for use in determining the encroachment permit fee prior to its issuance. 14. A Final Grading and Drainage Plan that includes an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Component shall be submitted to the City Engineer/Public Works Director for review and shall be approved by the City Engineer or designated staff prior to the commencement of any grading, site preparation activities, or construction of buildings and paving. A licensed civil engineer shall prepare all drainage calculations and other work done on this Plan. 15. Surface drainage caused by the proposed development project shall be carried off the site to Gibson Creek through a system approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer or the developer shall submit drainage improvement fees to the City of Ukiah to pay for the "fair share" portion of the large-scale drainage improvements required to accommodate increase drainage from this project and other potential development projects in the area. The current estimate for a "fair share" fee is $26,122.00. Attachment Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions 16. All storm drain inlets installed on the subject property shall be protected by a fossil fuel filtering device approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits for site preparation or construction. An estimate of the construction costs for all onsite/civil work shall be submitted to the Public Works Director/City Engineer for use in determining the plan check fee for the review of this work prior to the issuance of such permits. 17. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. 18. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. 19. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 20. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 21. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 22. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 23. Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby area in substantial conformance with the design of the project approved herein by the Planning Commission. 24. Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "story-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. 25. The site and buildings shall be thoroughly photographed and documented. 26. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and City Planning Department staff shall be notified immediately of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and, if deemed necessary, to develop a precise mitigation program prior to the continuation of any site work. 27. The applicants shall submit a Final Parking Plan to the Planning Department and this plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of any permits to allow substantial site preparation or paving on the site. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) The location and dimensions of all on-site parking, access lanes, and drive-through lanes; (b) The location and design of the two (2) pedestrian walkway between the sidewalk fronting the Perkins Street right-of-way to the sidewalk on the south side of the proposed structure, and one (1) from the sidewalk fronting Hospital Drive to the sidewalk on the east side of the proposed structure. Attachment # ~--" ~ Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions 28. 29. 30. 31. (c) The location and design for racks that will securely accommodate six (6) or more bicycles. The applicants shall submit a Final Landscape Plan in substantial conformance with the conceptual Landscape Plan conditionally approved herein to the Planning Department and this plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of any permits to allow substantial site preparation or paving on the site and all plants included in this Plan shall be planted prior to the issuance of an Certificate of Occupancy for the commercial structure unless the Director determines that an alternate planting schedule would be more favorable to the plants. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (a) The use of bush and tree species that grow well in the Ukiah climate, including native vegetation; (b) The planting of deciduous trees in the perimeter areas along the parking lot's eastern and southern sides; (c) The location and species of all trees designated as Street Trees for the Perkins Street frontage area; (d) A planting legend that includes the names, location, coverage area, and the anticipated maximum height and canopy cover of all vegetation at the time of maturity; (e) A planting schedule for all vegetation installed on the site; and (f) A maintenance schedule for existing or proposed vegetation, including a watering schedule and irrigation system design. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, weed-free manner, and may not be removed or substantially altered unless the Director of Planning reviews and approves the removal or replacement of vegetation determined to be diseased, unstable, hazardous, or poorly located on the site. Any vegetation removed from the site shall be replaced with similar vegetation approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee for review for compliance with Ukiah IVlunicipal Code standards for on-site lighting and with "dark sky" guidelines for reducing nighttime lighting on the site. The Final Lighting Plan shall include details regarding exterior lighting for structures, garden areas, and walkways, with lighting sources that are full cut-off, hooded, and down-cast, or otherwise shielded to ensure that light does not adversely shine towards neighboring properties East Perkins Street, or toward the night sky. Additionally, all lighting shall be the minimum wattage necessary to provide adequate security, yet shall not result in excessively bright night glow. The applicants shall submit a Final Sign Program in substantial conformance with the conceptual Sign Program conditionally approved herein that includes the designs and samples of building materials for all signs installed on the subject property to the Planning Department and these signs shall be approved by the Director of Planning as signs that are consistent with the approved Sign Program. The Director may approve minor deviations or modifications to the approved signs so long as he or she determines that the changes represent improvements to the approved signs, are compatible with the overall design and intent of the Sign Program, and are consistent with the Sign Code provisions and Commercial Development Design Guidelines provisions in effect at the time the sign changes are proposed. Attachment Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions 32. The applicants shall submit samples of the canopy roofing, wall surfaces, and colors approved by the Planning Commission to the Planning Department for review and these materials shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to allow the construction of the commercial structure. The Director may approve minor deviations or modifications to the approved materials and colors as long as he or she determines that the changes are consistent with, or an improvement to, the approved materials. 33. The location and final designs for the required trash/recycling enclosure and any other appurtenant structures on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any structure on the site. These structures shall utilize designs and building materials that are consistent with those approved for the primary commercial building. 34. Air conditioning equipment and other appurtenant equipment placed on the roof of the building shall be screened by roof structures or other screening structures that utilize designs and building materials that are consistent with the design and building materials of the primary structure, with these designs and materials submitted to the Planning Department for review and the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the primary commercial building. 35. All conditions that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to release of final building inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. 36. All Conditions of Approval for this project shall be provided to all contractors working on the project, and these Conditions shall be prominently displayed in a separate block on the title page or on a separate page for any ministerial permits required to develop the property, including building permits and permits for grading or site preparation. Attachment # ~" ~ Narin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions City of Ukiah STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARIN VENTURES - WALGREENS Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59 ITEM NO. 9-A Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 PROJECT SUMMARY: The project consists of the development of a 14,049 square foot commercial structure that will house a retail store and pharmacy that will be open 24 hours per day. It also includes the development of new driveways onto the site, parking, access lanes to parking and a drive-thru pharmacy window, and new landscape planters around the perimeters of the property. The discretionary actions associated with this project are quasi-judicial in nature; therefore each decision-maker must physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove, or modify the project. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site consists of two contiguous parcels located at 308-310 East Perkins Street (Assessor Parcel Nos. 002-193-21 & 52), on the north side of Perkins Street, between Hospital Drive and the railroad right-of-way for the North Coast Railroad Authority's railroad tracks. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Environmental Coordinator determined the project is not exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and an Initial Study was prepared in which it was determined that the proposed project would cause potentially significant adverse environmental impacts related to lighting aesthetics, short-term air quality, historical resources, and hydrology and erosion. However, the Initial Study also identifies specific measures that will mitigate these adverse impacts to levels that are not significant and includes a mitigation monitoring program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C (Commercial) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C-1 (Community Commercial) Existing Conditions: The existing site consists of two relatively flat parcels with a total area of 1.46 acres. These lots are developed with the Outlet retail commercial store and the Video Fair video rental store, which contain a total floor area of approximately 24,500 square feet. These structures are located near the central portion of the lot, with an asphalt parking lot between the buildings and the abutting railroad right-of-way for the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA). The eastern portion of the site contains a 20-plus foot wide landscaped area with approximately 15 mature Redwood trees planted in a row along the Hospital Drive frontage. Attachment# MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES 1 Hospital Drive and East Perkins Street run along the eastern and southern sides of the property, with paved sidewalks, curb, and gutters all developed along these public rights-of-way. A medical office complex is located on the property to the north, and, as noted above, the railroad tracks and right-of- way maintained by the NCRA are located to the west. Background: In October of 2004, the Ukiah Demolition Committee recommended that the City Council approve a Demolition Permit to allow the removal of the existing structures on the project site. In making this recommendation, the Committee reviewed a memorandum from Committee Chair Judy Pruden that provides a comprehensive history of site uses, a Sanborn map copy, and old photographs of the original business on the site and the abutting property containing the Ukiah Railroad Depot structure. The Committee also discussed the extensive remodeling projects that have occurred over the last 50 years, determining that the existing buildings contain no substantial architectural or historical links to the original site development. Based on these factors, the Committee voted unanimously to support the proposed demolition, with a recommendation to the City Council that the historical impacts caused by the demolition of the buildings should be mitigated by extensively photographing the building and using these photographs and historical photographs and text to prepare a storyboard exhibit detailing the history and appearance of the site. The Committee also recommended that salvage materials from the existing structures should be incorporated into the storyboard and/or the new structure, and that the design of the new building include architectural features or elements of the Railroad/industrial buildings that were originally developed on the site and the abutting railroad property. Last November, the City Council approved the Demolition Permit and adopted these mitigation measures. Proposed Conditions: Site Improvements: The proposed project includes the construction of a 14,409 square foot commercial structure located near the center of the site, with parking on three sides, a pharmacy drive-thru lane on the northern side, and a drive-thru lane and loading area on the west side. Landscaping will be added to the eastern and southern perimeter areas, and in a larger planter area along the northern perimeter. Architectural Design: The proposed building will be approximately 23 feet high, with a 30-foot high tower on its southwest corner. Its walls will be constructed with concrete masonry walls covered by stucco, with tile roofing over the tower roof and a canopy roof that will extend along the entire southern building elevation and approximately three-quarters of the eastern and western building faces. A smaller canopy roof will be constructed on the northern portion of the building to cover the proposed drive-through lane. The rectangular building footprint and flat building elevations will result in a rather basic design, so various design amenities have been added to the building's exterior to provide relief from building mass or monotonous design. These include the tile roofing on the tower and the three canopies constructed along sections of three walls, as well as the multi-colored stucco wall, tile patterns on these columns, wall scoring, and pre-finished metal-sheeting coping on the top of the walls. Designs were also revised to include columns and canopy roof lines that precisely match those on the Depot building to the south. .- Parking: The proposed retail use is required to provide one parking stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, or a total of 48 stalls for the 14,409 square foot store. The SITE DATA sheet submitted for this project shows the applicants are proposing a total of 64 stalls, including 56 standard-size stalls, 4 compact-size stalls, and 4 handicapped-size stalls. The proposed parking will be distributed in separate lots located along the southern, eastern, and northern perimeters of the site, with tree planting wells installed between every fourth or fifth stall. The perimeter parking stalls will be separated from ~;treet rights-of-ways and adjoining properties by landscaped planter areas and the parking stalls facing the proposed structure will be separated by from the storefront by sidewalks that will be partially covered by the canopy roofs. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES Landscaping: The conceptual landscape plans submitted with the project show that the Redwood tree on the northeast corner of the site will be the only one retained, with the other Redwoods removed to accommodate the proposed Hospital Drive driveway and new plantings of deciduous trees. These trees will be replaced by a rather dense planting of trees, groundcovers, and other smaller plants distributed throughout the proposed perimeter planting areas and in smaller planter areas located between parking stalls. Proposed trees include Chinese Pistache, Raywood Ash, and Holly Oak species. The largest planting areas will consist of 10-15 foot wide perimeter planters extending along the Perkins Street and Hospital Drive frontages and the northern property line, which abuts a medical office complex. Smaller planters will be located in the parking lot, near the front entrance of the building, and along the western property line. Lighting: A relatively detailed conceptual lighting plan shows the location of proposed light standards and the lighting patterns for the proposed development, and it appears the project will comply fully with lighting standards for Ukiah. However, staff does recommend that a Final Lighting Plan be required, as outlined in Condition No. 30, to ensure that the final lighting patterns, intensities of light, and other lighting factors are consistent with "dark sky" guidelines for reducing lighting to levels required for security, without excess lighting spilling onto abutting lots or into the night sky. STAFF ANALYSIS General Plan Compliance: The subject property is designated in the Ukiah General Plan for C (Commercial) land uses, which allow the development of the proposed retail commercial use. Planning Department staff also determined the proposed building and site designs are also compatible with the siting criteria for new commercial developments, including site location, zoning discretion, public street access and access to structures, maximum building density, and connection to public utilities. The proposed building and site designs are also consistent with Land Use Element policies for design review by the Planning Commission and the application of the Commercial Development Design Guidelines discussed later in this analysis. The General Plan's Community Design Element defines Perkins Street as a "gateway" to the City of Ukiah, where visual protection and a higher design standard for commercial development projects are warranted. In this case, the proposed design of the commercial building and the surrounding site are consistent with the goal of establishing new development that will improve the appearance of area gateways. In this case, the base design of the commercial structure is a relatively standard design that is identifiable with the business that intends to occupy it. However, the base design was modified substantially after discussions between staff and the applicants, and the revised design added features that will correspond to similar features found on the abutting Depot building and the medical buildings to the east. It also includes unique design features intended to reduce building mass and make the building more distinctive, as well as landscaping on the surrounding grounds that will provide the screening and shading recommended for high-visibility commercial areas. Based on these factors, it is the opinion of staff that the design consistency and attractive design called for in the General Plan have been attained, and it is the opinion of staff that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Consistency with C-1 Zoning Standards: The subject property is located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District, in which the proposed retail store/pharmacy is an allowed land use. The proposed development is also consistent with applicable development standards for building height, lot area, and required yard areas. Specific discussions pertaining to other development standards are included below. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES Access and Parkinq: The proposed commercial building will be located centrally on the lot, with the primary access points consisting of two driveways located along the Hospital Drive and East Perkins Street frontages. These driveways will provide ingress and egress to the primary customer parking areas on the east and south sides of the building, with a second driveway on the north side of the building accessing an employee parking area and the drive-thru pharmacy windows proposed for the north side of the structure. This driveway will also access the one-way driveway on the west side of the building, which provides access to the proposed loading dock and a throughway for customers wishing to exit the site via the Perkins Street driveway. The parking areas on the eastern and southern perimeters of the site will have a total of 48 parking stalls, including three handicapped stalls and five compact-sized stalls, with 12 compact stalls proposed for the northern perimeter of the property. In calculating the required parking for this project, staff determined that the 14,409 square foot commercial structure will require a total of 48 stalls to comply with the standard of one stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, the proposed parking plan complies fully with the C-1 parking ratio since it provides 12 stalls more than required. The parking lots will also conform to standards for stall sizes, aisle widths, and landscaping. The parking plan also provides a single bike rack with slots for 6 bicycles near the southeast corner of the building. This single rack will be consistent with bicycle parking standards that require one bicycle parking stall for each ten vehicles required on the site, or 5 bicycle parking stalls for this project. The parking layout also includes designated pedestrian walkways between sidewalks along the Perkins Street and Hospital drive frontages and the paved walkway fronting the building. In fact, these pedestrian access points have been incorporated into larger landscaped areas where a bench will be placed, allowing customers a place to rest. Landscaping: The conceptual landscape plan for this project will retain only one of the existing Redwood trees located on the eastern perimeter of the project site. Staff normally encourages the retention of existing trees, but in this case, staff recommends the removal of the Redwoods since this tree species is not proportional to the size and scale of the proposed building. Additionally, staff does not favor the use of Redwoods or other large confers in any development project where large planter areas can be established since these trees typically require large areas for roots. They also cause large areas of year-round shade and can be extremely hazardous during storms or other high-wind events. The landscaping proposed to replace the existing trees and cover other areas of this site has been designed to provide a high degree of consistency with the landscaping standards for the C-1 Zoning District. In fact, this plan complies with standards that require commercial projects to provide landscaping that is proportional to the buildings it will surround, well-suited to Ukiah's climate, and of sufficient size that a viable and mature appearance will be attained in a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, the majority of trees along the south and west perimeters are deciduous trees that will not interfere with solar access and the proposed layout provides the 20 percent landscaping coverage called for in the C-1 development standards, with well over half of these areas containing live plantings. Furthermore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed layout will establish an effective pattern of vegetation that is expected to add to the attractiveness of the project and meet landscaping guidelines for shade coverage and screening of buildings and parking lots. Therefore, staff recommends that the conceptual landscape design be approved, subject to a requirement for a Final Landscape Plan approved by the Director of Planning. Staff outlines these requirements in recommended Condition Numbers 28 and 29. S(qns: The commercial sign standards for Ukiah require that signs for commercial developments are submitted as part of sign program that 'includes all proposed signs and that this program is generally consistent with the commercial signs provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC). Due to its location on a corner between two public streets, the new development property is allowed a maximum of 500 square feet of total sign area. The signs submitted as part of the conceptual sign program contain a total area of 405.5 square feet and include four wall signs each on the southern and eastern elevations, MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES ) --' 4 a separate logo sign on the western wall face, a wall sign advertising the drive-thru lane, and a nine-foot high monument sign along the Perkins Street frontage. All of these signs will be lighted. The largest wall signs will be the three Walgreens logo signs, which will each measure approximately 81 square feet. The remaining walls signs will include six signs advertising the pharmacy, photo, and 24- hour operations at the store; these signs will all be 1.5 feet high and between 6-12 feet long. The proposed monument signs will consist of a 36 square foot Walgreens sign on a stucco base that will raise it to a total height of nine feet. This sign will be dual-faced, with the Walgreens and pharmacy cup Iogos and text advertising the pharmacy, drive-thru lane, and 24-hour operation of the store. This sign package utilizes only 80 percent of the area allowed under sign code provisions, with signs that are entirely in scale with the building and signs on abutting properties. While Staff would prefer less secondary signage (24-hour, pharmacy, photo) on the building walls, the proposal is acceptable, and again, it complies with the sign regulations. Consistency with Design Guidelines for Commercial Projects Outside the Downtown Design District: As noted above, the project site is situated close to Ukiah's downtown area and along a street that is designated in the General Plan as a "gateway" to the community. As such, the project is subject to the design guidelines prepared for commercial projects outside the Downtown Design District, including those for parking, pedestrian orientation, compatibility with surrounding development, and building design. Brief discussions on these guidelines are included below. Parkinq Guidelines: The proposed parking layout is consistent with the C-1 Zone development standards for parking, as noted in earlier discussions. It is also consistent with the design guidelines for placing parking in smaller lots that will be aesthetically screened and well-shaded by a number of trees planted in wells between the parking stalls and in the perimeter planting areas on the north, east, and south sides of the building. This layout also serves to de-emphasize the visual prominence of the parking lots, as recommended in the guidelines, particularly along the Perkins Street frontage where there is only a single lane of parking. Pedestrian Orientation: The proposed development plan provides for three stamped asphalt pedestrian walkways across the parking areas located between the commercial building and the sidewalks along Perkins Street and Hospital Drive. In addition, excellent pedestrian access will be available in front of the building, which will have broad covered sidewalks along the eastern and southern sides of the building, with benches for seating and bike racks installed to encourage non-vehicular access. Compatibility with Surroundinq Development: In staff's opinion, the proposed commercial development is highly compatible with surrounding development since it will provide a functional and relatively attractive design that is more aesthetic in appearance than the buildings it will replace and consistent with the designs for other commercial buildings along this section of Perkins Street. This consistency is furthered by the inclusion of the design features' copied from the Depot building to the south, as described earlier in this report. The proposed development will also place service areas, trash enclosures, utility meters, and mechanical devices behind the structure or behind screened structures that will utilize building designs and materials similar to those used on the commercial building. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES .~ ~ 5 Buildinq Des{qn: Architecture: As noted earlier, the base design of the proposed building is fairly standard, but it has been made more interesting and attractive by the addition of a number of design features that are intended to provide compatibility with surrounding development. The effectiveness of this design is subjective, but it is staff's opinion that these features and the way they are presented are successful in creating the intended appearance and that the proposed structure will be compatible with the aesthetics of the surrounding area. This is particularly true of the column and canopy roof features copied from the Depot building to the south. Building Materials and Colors: The proposed stucco walls and the muted color scheme proposed for the building are compatible with the design guidelines for materials and colors. In addition, the design will utilize varied materials and colors on the canopies and other appurtenant structures, which should provide contrast with the larger wall masses and larger blocks of color. Liphtinq: The Lighting Plan submitted with the application shows that the primary sources of light will be from security lighting on the building and Iow-level lighting in the parking lot and drive-through lane. It appears that this lighting will be effective in keeping light from spilling onto abutting streets and properties, or into the night sky. However, staff has recommended that a Final Lighting Plan is approved by the Director of Planning prior to the approval of any building permits for the project to ensure that no such adverse effects will occur. This plan is outlined in recommended Condition No. 30. Ener. qy Conservation: The proposed building does not include any specific active or passive solar systems, but its south-facing orientation does allow for natural heating and cooling of the structure, and the location and size of the proposed structure would not adversely affect the potential for the installation of such systems or block solar access on abutting lots. Therefore, this orientation is considered to be compatible with the design guidelines. Signs: See Signs analysis under the C-1 Zoning Standards discussion above. Outdoor Storaqe and Service Areas: The loading and unloading area and the trash compaction area for the commercial building will be situated in the access lane on the west side of the proposed building. This area will be highly visible from the abutting railroad right-of-way and to persons driving by on Perkins Street, but the applicants intend to screen this utility area with a solid fence or a hedge. Planning staff supports this concept, but recommends that the final design of the fence or hedge be approved as part of the final landscape plan outlined in recommended Condition No. 33. Landscaloinq: As noted in the discussion on C-1 zoning standards, the Conceptual Landscape Plan submitted with the application shows that the proposed landscaping layout and the number of trees shown will comply with provisions for landscaping. However, full compliance will be determined at the construction stage of the project, with the approval of a Final Landscape Plan by the Planning Director. Comments from Judy Pruden; Planning Commissioner Judy Pruden will not be in attendance at the hearing for this project, but she has submitted specific design recommendations that include modifications to building colors, roofing materials, the tower roof design, canopy supports, and the tower logo sign. These changes differ from staff's analysis of the project, but staff recognizes that all of the changes recommended by Ms. Pruden are subjective in nature and could improve certain aspects of the building and landscape designs. Therefore, staff wished to present them as submitted and has attached them to the staff report for the Planning Commission's consideration. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES Environmental Analysis: The proposed project is not exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and an Initial Study was prepared to analyze potential impacts to the area environment. In this study, staff determined that the development of the site will create potentially significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources and air quality, as described below. Aesthetic Impacts: Planning Department staff identified potentially significant lighting impacts from site lighting and recommended that this impact be mitigated by the preparation of a final lighting plan utilizing "dark sky" guidelines be developed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any permits to construct a building on the site. This measure is included as recommended Condition No. 30. Air Quality Impacts: No long-term air quality impacts would be caused by the project, but staff was concerned with the potentially significant short-term air quality impacts that grading and site preparation work could cause during the actual development of the site. Therefore, it included mitigation measures that are also listed as Conditions of Approval 17-22 in this staff report. Historic Resource Impacts: As noted above, the project proposal includes the demolition of existing buildings that bear remnants of historical structures despite extensive remodeling. Based on the potential impacts to historical resources, measures to document the appearance of the existing structures and include features of these buildings in the required storyboard and the design of the new building were included as mitigation measures. These are included as Conditions of Approval 23-26. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts: City Engineer/Public Works Department staff noted that the project could cause substantial adverse drainage and erosion problems if erosion control measures are not addressed during the development phase of the project. Therefore, staff has included a mitigation measure requiring a full grading and drainage plan with an erosion control component and added it as recommended Condition of Approval 14. Additionally, Public Works Staff has concluded that the proposed project would contribute to an existing drainage problem along Perkins Street. To off-set this impact, the applicants will be required to route site drainage across (piped under) Perkins Street to Gibson Creek, or contribute financially to the solution to the Perkins Street drainage problem. The estimated financial contribution is $26,122.00. Traffic and Circulation: Due to staff concerns that traffic caused by the proposed development of this site could cause adverse impacts to existing levels of service for East Perkins Street, Hospital Drive, and the intersection between these streets, a traffic study was required for the project. In this study, which was done by the traffic engineering firm of TJKM in the latter part of last year, potentially adverse impacts associated with cumulative traffic impacts and the right-turn lane onto East Perkins Street were identified. These impacts are analyzed in the Initial Study, which also includes measures designed to reduce these impacts to levels that are not significant and staff has included these as recommended Conditions of Approval 7 and 8. The applicants have also agreed to financially participate in the emerging traffic impact fee program for vacant and underutilized parcels that when developed, would contribute to the cumulative impacts at various identified intersections. This community-spirited participation is welcomed and appreciated. The calculated fee for this project is $7,888.00. In addition, the applicants and Staff are exploring the possibility of making improvements to the Perkins Street/Hospital Drive intersection that would accompany the project. While these improvements are technically not necessary for the project, the applicants have expressed an interest in developing a partnership to provide these improvements with the project to increase pedestrian safety. Airport Master Plan Consistency: According to the Land Use Compatibility Map of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, the subject property is in the area designated as Compatibility Zone B-2 (Extended Approach-Departure Zone). The Current Compatibility Criteria in the Plan indicate that these MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARiN VENTURES 3 '" 7 areas are subject to limited risks and frequent noise intrusions from aircraft flying at or below 400 feet above grade level, and that the number of persons allowed on the site should be limited to 60 persons per acre. The proposed retail commercial land use is listed as "normally acceptable" in this compatibility zone, and the proposed site development will comply fully with recommended density ratios of 60 persons per acre and 30 percent open space on the site, making it compatible with the master plan. Staff discussed the proposal with the Staff of the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission, and they agreed that it complies with the density, open space, and other requirements for the B-2 airport compatibility zone. CONCLUSIONS: In staff's initial meetings with the applicants, Planning Department staff identified specific constraints to development on the site, including impacts to traffic/site access and design compatibility with gateway aesthetic resources. It is staff's opinion, however, that these issues were dealt with effectively during the design phase of the project and that the resultant project will provide an accessible and aesthetically pleasing addition to the area since the proposed building and site designs are highly consistent with the surrounding land uses, which include commercial and railroad/industrial settings. Staff further concludes that the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan, the applicable design standards of the C-1 Zoning District, the design guidelines applicable to development projects outside the Downtown Design District, the compatibility criteria of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan, and the Mitigation Measures adopted in the Negative Declaration for the Demolition Permit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department's recommendation for the approval of Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59 is based, in part on the following findings: . The proposed commercial development is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City General Plan since the proposed building and other site development would be consistent with the criteria for new development on lands in the Commercial land use designation and with pertinent design criteria spelled out in the Community Design Element of the Plan; . The proposed commercial development is consistent with the applicable design standards of the C- 1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District and the design guidelines applicable to development projects outside the Downtown Design District; . The proposed commercial development is consistent with the density, open space, and other compatibility criteria for the B-2 infill area north of the airport, as listed in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan; . The location, size and intensity of. the proposed commercial development, as conditioned, will not create a hazardous or inconvenient vehicular or pedestrian traffic pattern since the traffic study done for the project indicates that the traffic volumes created by the commercial use of the property will not increase traffic to volumes that warrant substantial improvements to existing streets or intersections, and pedestrian traffic will be able to reach the site on existing public sidewalks that connect to dedicated on-site pedestrian walkways; . The accessibility of off-street parking areas and the relation of parking areas with respect to traffic on adjacent streets will not create a hazardous or inconvenient condition to adjacent or surrounding uses' since the site will utilize driveway entrances, on-site circulation and drive- through lanes, and parking lot layouts that are consistent with the Parking Standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code; MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES . Sufficient landscaped areas have been reserved for purposes of separating or screening the proposed commercial building and appurtenant facilities from the street and adjoining buildings and for breaking up and screening the paving in the parking lot and access lanes for the site; . The proposed commercial building will not restrict or cut out light and air on the property or on other properties in the neighborhood since the building will be constructed in a centralized location on the property and is not high enough or large enough to cast substantial shadows onto abutting lands; . The proposed commercial building will not have a substantial detrimental impact on the character or value of an adjacent residential zoning district since the abutting lands are all zoned for commercial uses; o The proposed development will not excessively damage or destroy natural features since the only feature consists of Redwood trees that will be replaced with landscape trees that are more appropriate to commercial development in a high-use urban setting; 10. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the commercial building and grounds to avoid monotony and/or a box-like and uninteresting appearance due to the use of building walls with insets, projections, columns, and canopy structures at varied heights, as well as design features and building materials that are consistent with those in use on the existing structure and structures on abutting lots; and 11. The proposed commercial building will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts if the mitigation measures/conditions of approval included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the project are adopted. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59, shall remain in force regardless of property ownership, and shall be implemented in order for this entitlement to remain valid' o All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission, and to any supporting documents submitted therewith, including maps, sketches, renderings, building elevations, landscape plans, and alike. . Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah; except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the Planning Commission. , In addition to any particular condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire, electric, plumbing, occupancY,' and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time the Building Permit is approved and issued. 4. Applicant shall be required to obtain and maintain any permit or approval, which is required by law, regulation, or ordinance, be it required by Local, State, or Federal agency. , The approved Site Development Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations a'nd conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-four (24) consecutive months. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES o . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Except as otherwise specifically noted, the Site Development Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any building, use, or zone requirements except as to such specific purposes. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall detail the right turn in (from westbound East Perkins Street) and right turn out only from the site onto westbound East Perkins Street movement. A "pork chop" right turn in only median design at the encroachment or other design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be detailed on the plans. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicants shall pay a cumulative traffic impact fee of $7,888.00 to mitigate the projects' cumulative contribution of traffic into key nearby intersections. The applicant shall dedicate the 10-foot wide portion of the subject property's southern perimeter to the City of Ukiah as part of the right-of-way for East Perkins Street. This dedication shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the commercial building. All curb cuts for driveways onto the project site shall be developed in accordance with Public Works standards and shall be approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits for site preparation or construction. All curbs, gutters, and sidewalk that are in disrepair shall be repaired in a manner that conforms to City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and 102, or as otherwise required by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Street trees shall be planted five feet behind the sidewalks that front East Perkins Street and Hospital Drive. These trees should be no greater than 30 feet from each other, but the tree species and exact locations of these trees shall be approved as part of the Final Landscape Plan for the project, and shall be maintained by the site developer or future owners as part of the overall landscaping for the property. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all work done within the public roadway easements adjacent to the site. All such work shall be done by a licensed contractor and an estimate of all estimated construction costs shall be submitted to the Public Works Director/City Engineer for use in determining the encroachment permit fee prior to its issuance. A Grading and Drainage Plan that includes an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Component shall be submitted to the City Engineer/Public Works Director for review and shall be approved by the City Engineer or designated staff prior to the commencement of any grading, site preparation activities, or' construction of buildings and paving. A licensed civil engineer shall prepare all drainage calculations and other work done on this Plan. Surface drainage caused by the proposed development project shall be carried off the site to Gibson Creek through a system approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer or the developer shall submit drainage improvement fees to the City of Ukiah to pay for the "fair share" portion of the large-scale drainage improvements required to accommodate increase drainage from this project and other potential development projects in the area. The current estimate for a "fair shaCe" fee is $26,122.00. All storm drain inlets installed on the subject property shall be protected by a fossil fuel filtering device approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits for site preparation or construction. An estimate of the construction costs for all onsite/civil ~... 10 MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES work shall be submitted to the Public Works Director/City Engineer for use in determining the plan check fee for the review of this work prior to the issuance of such permits. 17. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. 18. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. 19. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 20. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 21. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 22. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 23. Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby area. 24. Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "stow-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. 25. The site and buildings shall be thoroughly photographed and documented. 26. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and City Planning Department staff shall' be notified .immediately of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and, if deemed necessary, to develop a precise mitigation program prior to the continuation of any site work. 27. The applicants shall submit a Final Parking Plan to the Planning Department and this plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of any permits to allow substantial site preparation or paving on the site. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following' (a) The location and dimensions of all on-site parking, access lanes, and drive-through lanes; (b) The location and design of a pedestrian walkway between the sidewalk fronting the Perkins Street right-of-way and the sidewalk/outdoor seating area on the south side of the proposed structure; (c) The location and design of a pedestrian walkway between the sidewalk/outdoor seating area on the south side of the commercial structure and the stairwell that will be constructed on the east side of the structure; and (d) 'The location and design for racks that will securely accommodate 12 or more bicycles in a covered area. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES .,~ -- 1 1 28. The applicants shall submit a Final Landscape Plan to the Planning Department and this plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of any permits to allow substantial site preparation or paving on the site and all plants included in this Plan shall be planted prior to the issuance of an Certificate of Occupancy for the commercial structure unless the Director determines that an alternate planting schedule would be more favorable to the plants. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (a) The use of bush and tree species that grow well in the Ukiah climate, including native vegetation; (b) The planting of deciduous trees in the perimeter areas along the parking lot's western and southern sides; (c) The location and species of all trees designated as Street Trees for the Perkins Street frontage area; (d) A planting legend that includes the names, location, coverage area, and the anticipated maximum height and canopy cover of all vegetation at the time of maturity; (e) A planting schedule for all vegetation installed on the site; and (f) A maintenance schedule for existing or proposed vegetation, including a watering schedule and irrigation system design. 29. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, weed-free manner, and may not be removed or substantially altered unless the Director of Planning reviews and approves the removal or replacement of vegetation determined to be diseased, unstable, hazardous, or poorly located on the site. Any vegetation removed from the site shall be replaced with similar vegetation approved by the Planning Director. 30. 31. 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee for review for compliance with Ukiah Municipal Code standards for on-site lighting and with "dark sky" guidelines for reducing nighttime lighting on the site. The Final Lighting Plan shall include details regarding exterior lighting for structures, garden areas, and walkways, with lighting sources that are full cut-off, hooded, and down-cast, or otherwise shielded to ensure that light does not adversely shine towards neighboring properties East Perkins Street, or toward the night sky. Additionally, all lighting shall be the minimum wattage necessary to provide adequate security, yet shall not result in excessively bright night glow. The applicants shall submit a Final Sign Program that includes the designs and samples of building materials for all signs installed on the subject property to the Planning Department and these signs shall be approved by the Director of Planning as signs that are consistent with the approved Sign Program. The Director may approve minor deviations or modifications to the approved signs so long as he or she determines that the changes represent improvements to the approved .signs, are compatible with the overall design and intent of the Sign Program, and are consistent with"the Sign Code provisions and Commercial Development Design Guidelines provisions in effect at the time the sign changes are proposed. The applicants shall submit samples of the canopy roofing, wall surfaces, and colors approved by the Planning Commission to the Planning Department for review and these materials shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to allow the construction of the commercial structure. The Director may approve minor deviations or modifications to the approved materials and colors so long as he or she determines that the 'changes are consistent with, or an improvement to, the approved materials. 33 .The location and final designs for the required trash/recycling enclosure and any other appurtenant structures on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MARIN VENTURES ~ .-' 12 34. 35. 36. structure on the site. These structures shall utilize designs and building materials that are consistent with those approved for the primary commercial building. Air conditioning equipment and other appurtenant equipment placed on the roof of the building shall be screened by roof structures or other screening structures that utilize designs and building materials that are consistent with the design and building materials of the primary structure, with these designs and materials submitted to the Planning Department for review and the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of the primary commercial building. All conditions that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to release of final building inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. All Conditions of Approval for this project shall be provided to all contractors working on the project, and these Conditions shall be prominently displayed in a separate block on the title page or on a separate page for any ministerial permits required to develop the property, including building permits and permits for grading or site preparation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Project Narrative from Applicants 3. Site Plan 4. Elevations 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for SDP 04-43 6. Demolition Permit Review Committee Meeting Minutes for October 26, 2004 7. Agenda and Memorandum for Demolition Permit Review Committee Meeting on October 26, 2004 8. Comments submitted by Judy Pruden This staff report was prepared by Dave Lohse, Associate Planner. MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MAR1N VENTURES LOCATION MAP MARIN VENTURES Maior Site Development Permit No. 04-59 (APN 002-1193-21 & 52) f-1 Ii!!! I'i ! 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 300' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 500 feet NORTH ATTACHMENT 1 Project Description Waigreens Drug Store 308 / 310 Perkins Street, Ukiah, CA Backround The Project is located at 308 / 310 Perkins Street in the City of Ukiah, at the northwest corner of Perkins Street and Hospital Drive. The Project site area is approximately 63,695 square feet, or 1.46 acres, on two adjacent parcels APN 002-193-21-00 and APN 002-193-52-00. Currently the site contains a building of approximately 27,903 square feet. The Project entails the removal of the existing improvements and the construction of a new 14,409 +/- square foot Walgreens Drug Store open 24 hours a day with a double drive-thru and related landscape and site improvements. The Demolition Review Committee found that the existing building had no architectural significance and a demolition permit to remove the existing buildings was approved by the Ukiah Demolition Review Committee on October 26, 2004. The Ukiah City Council met on November 17, 2004 and approved the applicant's Demolition Permit to remove the existing structures. The applicant recognizes the important features of the project location as a "gateway" to the City of Ukiah. Over the course of many months and numerous meetings, the applicant and City Staff have worked collectively to arrive at a project design which accentuates the importance of this location. Design The applicant has worked extensively with City Staff to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan incorporating the historical context of the surrounding area in accordance with the findings of the Demolition Review Committee and the City of Ukiah Design Guidelines while substantially enhancing the surrounding environment and providing important improvements to public safety. The comprehensive, unifying de, sign theme is rich in architectural features with direct ties to the Railroad Depot and surrounding area. A towered entry feature with a hipped roof, pilasters detailed with base and crown moldings and covered walkways on either side of the entrance create a pedestrian friendly scale and echo the vernacular style of the adjacent Railroad Depot Building. The pilasters framing the entrance to the building have been sized to dramatically accentuate the entryway while the pilasters on the sides of the building, along with arches shaped to mimic the hip roof element create attractive changes in wall planes and further tie the building to the Railroad Depot design. The overall effect of the design creates a unique compatibility between the building and the adjacent structures. Special emphasis has been placed to screen the service area with a live screen (hedge) in addition to wooden screens. Natural earth tones have been used through out the building with the palette lightening as the building rises from the ground. Color has been used to accent the decoration and trim of the building and to further distinguish the design. Attractive scoring and reveals complete the elevations. A detailed Story Board has been proposed in accordance with the Demolition Review Committee approval, which will prominently display the proud heritage of the site and provide a glimpse of Ukiah circa early 1900's. The applicant will work with City Staff and the Demolition Review Committee in the preparation of the content of the Story Board to include a detailed history of the site along with historical photos of the site and surrounding area. The building will also include a complete fire sprinkler system and the site design will incorporate a new fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the property to improve public safety. Access & Parking The site is currently accessed via an all turns driveway on Perkins Street. Vehicular access to the site will be improved via a right-in & right-out driveway on Perkins Street and the addition of a new all turns driveway on Hospital Drive. A traffic study for the Project was prepared based upon the requirements provided by the City of Ukiah. The traffic study found no significant traffic impacts resulting from the project. At City Staff's suggestion, the pedestrian access was improved with the addition of two additional pathways to the building entrance and stamped asphalt in the drive aisles. Landscaoin~ An extensive landscape plan has been developed in conjunction with the City's Landscape Design Guidelines. The landscape plan has been designed to enhance the design and site layout while creating an attractive year round environment that complements and enhances the appearance of the Project. A combination of drought tolerant trees, shrubs and ground cover has been chosen which are known to excel in the "zone" established for the Ukiah area according to the Sunset Western Garden Book. The Project presents an attractive streetscape including new street trees along both frontages and additional trees throughout the parking lot and the site. Pedestrian scale places have been provided throughout the project including decorative paving to accentuate pedestrian paths of travel through the parking lot, similar to that used at the Depot Park across Perkins Street. Bike racks and a public bench are incorporated in the project to further emphasize the pedestrian friendly nature of the Project. The applicant and City Staff have successfully worked together to balance Walgreen's parking requirements with the City's desire for an efficient and well landscaped design. With the two additional pedestrian access ways, the landscape coverage of the Project is 20.4%, in excess of the City's 20% landscape coverage requirement. Lighting A site lighting plan has been prepared to enhance the building and site design while providing safety and security. The lighting design is based on the requirements of International Dark Sky Association approved fixture suppliers while providing a complement to the design theme. Shields on the parking lot lights will be incorporated to prevent project lighting from creating glare onto adjoining properties or into the night sky. Summary The applicant has worked closely with City Staff over many months to create a comprehensive redevelopment plan which strives to incorporate the best elements of the City's Design Guidelines, the surrounding area including the Railroad Depot Building and the requirements outlined by the Demolition Review Committee. The Project will greatly enhance the area while providing a catalyst for future redevelopment efforts along the Perkins Street corridor. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARIN VENTURES MAJOR SITE D E VEL OPMEN T PER MI T (SDP No. 04-59) CITY OF UKIAH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: APPLICANTS: PROJECT NOS.: LOCATION: February 16, 2005 Marin Ventures Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59 308-310 East Perkins Street, City of Ukiah, County of Mendocino (Assessor Parcel Numbers 002-193-21 & 52) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a Major Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 14,049 square foot retail drug store on two contiguous parcels located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed store will be in the center of the 1.46-acre site, with a two-lane drive-thru pharmacy window on its north side and driveways along all four sides of the structure. Parking and landscape planters will be constructed along the northern, eastern, and southern perimeters, with a narrow planter and fence running along the western boundary. The proposed building will be approximately 23 feet high, with a 30-foot high tower on its southwest corner. Its walls will be constructed with concrete masonry walls covered by stucco that will be painted with different shades of earth tone colors and accented by vertical columns, vertical and horizontal scoring, tile treatments, and brick wainscoting. Additional design amenities include the proposed tower and a canopy roof that will extend along the entire southern building elevation and approximately three-quarters of the eastern and western building faces. A smaller canopy roof will be constructed on the northwest portion of the building to cover the proposed drive-through lane. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The existing site consists of two relatively flat parcels with a total area of 1.46 acres. These lots are developed with the Outlet retail commercial store and the Video Fair video rental store, which contain a total floor area of approximately 24,500 square feet. These structures are located on the central portion of the lot, with an asphalt parking lot between the buildings and the abutting railroad right-of-way. The eastern portion of the site contains a 20-plus foot wide landscaped area with approximately 15 mature Redwood trees. The eastern and southern portions of the site are bounded by Hospital Drive and East Perkins Street, respectively, with paved sidewalks, curb, and gutters running along these frontages. The eastern portion of the site fronts the right-of-way and railroad tracks maintained by the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA), with a medical office complex located on the property to the north. In November of this year, the City Council approved a Demolition Permit to allow the demolition of the existing structures. However, no demolition is anticipated prior to the approval of the site development permit to permit the construction of the retail store proposed in this project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: City of Ukiah staff conducted a careful and comprehensive review of the project that included the preparation of an Environm(~hfal Checklist in which ' potentially significant adverse impacts related to lighting aesthetics, short-term air quality impacts, historical resources, and hydrology and erosion were identified. Based on this analysis, staff concluded the project will require the adoption of mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program to lessen these impacts to levels that are not significant. Staff further concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project is appropriate and specific Findings in support of this determination are listed below. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures FINDINGS SUPPORTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION' 0 Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment; ,. , Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals; 3. The potentially significant impacts resulting from this project would be mitigated to levels that are not considered to be significant if the recommended mitigation measures are adopted; 4. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and . Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and further, that this Negati,ve Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This document may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Semi ryA hue Ukiah, Ca, ia. February 16, 2005 ~¢~~~i~ Director~~nmental Coordinator Date Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures INITIAL STUDY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CITY OF UKIAH BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59 2. Name of Project Proponent: Matin Ventures 3. Address of Project Proponent: P.O. Box 4282, Burlingame, CA 94011-4282 4. Project Location: 308-310 East Perkins Street, Ukiah, CA 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 002-193-21 & 52) 6. Date of Initial Study Preparation: February 16, 2005 7. Name of Lead Agency: City of Ukiah 8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482/ (707) 463-6200 9. Environmental Setting / Project Description: (See the detailed Project Description on page 2 of this Initial Study) 10. Plans, Exhibits, and other Submitted Application Materials: All the plans, exhibits, technical reports, and other submitted application materials are available for review at the City of Ukiah Planning Department - 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah. 11. Initial Study Prepared by: Ukiah Planning Department Staff Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a Major Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a 14,049 square foot retail drug store on two contiguous parcels located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed store will be in the center of the 1.46-acre site, with a two-lane drive-thru pharmacy window on its north side and driveways along all four sides of the structure. Parking and landscape planters will be constructed along the northern, eastern, and southern perimeters, with a narrow planter and fence running along the western boundary. The proposed building will be approximately 23 feet high, with a 30-foot high tower on its southwest corner. Its walls will be constructed with concrete masonry walls covered by stucco that will be painted with different shades of earth tone colors and accented by vertical columns, vertical and horizontal scoring, tile treatments, and brick wainscoting. Additional design amenities include the proposed tower and a canopy roof that will extend along the entire southern building elevation and approximately three- quarters of the eastern and western building faces. A smaller canopy roof will be constructed on the northwest portion of the building to cover the proposed drive-through lane. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The existing site consists of two relatively fiat parcels with a total area of 1.46 acres. These lots are developed with the Outlet retail commercial store and the Video Fair video rental store, which contain a total floor area of approximately 24,500 square feet. These structures are located on the central portion of the lot, with an asphalt parking lot between the buildings and the abutting railroad right-of-way. The eastern portion of the site contains a 20-plus foot wide landscaped area with approximately 9 mature Redwood trees. The eastern and southern portions of the site are bounded by Hospital Drive and East Perkins Street, respectively, with paved sidewalks, curb, and gutters running along these frontages. The eastern portion of the site fronts the right-of-way and railroad tracks maintained by the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA), with a medical office complex located on the property to the north. In November of this year, the City Council approved a Demolition Permit to allow the demolition of the existing structures. However, no demolition is anticipated prior to the approval of the site development permit to permit the construction of the retail store proposed in this project. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS A. Settinq: Due to its proximity to the existing railroad tracks, the subject property has historically been used for warehousing and commercial land uses, and it is now developed with two commercial structures that utilize a combination of metal and masonry walls. These relatively unattractive structures will be demolished if the more attractive commercial structure proposed in this project is built. The subject property is also adjacent to Perkins Street, which the Ukiah General Plan identifies as a "gateway" street and, as such, is subject to the Commercial Development Design Guidelines for downtown development. B. Si_qnificance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the project resulted in obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway, creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public, substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or generation of new sources of light or glare that adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including any direct illumination or reflection upon adjacent property, or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise situated within sight of the project. ¢. Impacts: The construction of the proposed commercial structure is not expected to cause obstructions to any scenic view or vista or damage to a significant scenic resource since there are none present on the site. Additionally, no substantial views off the site will be disturbed or blocked by the new structure or other development activities. The proposed infill development will substantially alter the appearance of the subject property through the demolition of the existing structures, but the proposed commercial structure is more attractive than the existing metal buildings and more consistent with commercial development design guidelines for downtown Ukiah. Furthermore, while the mature Redwoods on the eastern perimeter of the site will be removed, it is the opinion of staff that these trees are too large and too concentrated in numbers and location to be retained as an integral part of any commercial development on the site. Therefore, their replacement with the more balanced landscape plan proposed for this project will not result in long-term or significant visual impacts on the site. The proposal includes reforesting the site with tree species more appropriate in dense urban settings. Outdoor lighting associated with the project could be a nuisance to neighboring properties if allowed to shine offsite towards neighboring pr~l:~erties or the night sky. The conceptual lighting plan submitted with the project indicates that the proposed on-site lighting will not cause substantial adverse effects to neighboring properties if properly installed, but staff is concerned the proposed light fixtures and poles could shine skyward if not properly directed or hooded. Therefore, staff recommends that a final lighting plan utilizing "dark sky" lighting guidelines and Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1. SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures showing the design, placement, wattage, and coverage area of all on-site lighting be required as a mitigation measure. This plan would be reviewed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed commercial structure. D. Miti_clation Measures to Off-Set Liqhtin.q I'mpacts: . Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Final Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee for review for compliance with Ukiah Municipal Code standards for on-site lighting and with "dark sky" guidelines for reducing nighttime lighting on the site. The Final Lighting Plan shall include details regarding exterior lighting for structures, garden areas, and walkways, with lighting sources that are full cut-off, hooded, and down-cast, or otherwise shielded to ensure that light does not adversely shine towards neighboring properties, East Perkins Street, or toward the night sky. Additionally, all lighting shall be the minimum wattage necessary to provide adequate security, yet shall not result in excessively bright night glow. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: Limiting site lighting away from neighboring properties. East Perkins Street, and the night sky will reduce the potentially significant adverse visual quality impacts to levels of insignificance. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES A. Setting: The City of Ukiah is a small, but urbanized area, and the subject property is located in an area where there is a mix of commercial land uses and large publicly used facilities, including the North Coast Railroad depot property and the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. In fact, the nearest agricultural resources are the pear orchards located east of Highway 101, which are approximately one-half mile from the site. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to agricultural resources would occur if implementation of the project caused a conversion of prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses or conflicted with lands zoned for agricultural uses or subject to the Williamson Act. C. Impacts: No impacts to agricultural resources will be caused by the project since it will not require the conversion of existing agricultural lands and does not abut agricultural operations. D. Miti.qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A III. AIR QUALITY A. Settinq - Air Basin Characteristics: The concentration of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and sunshine. In Ukiah, the combined effects of moderate winds, clear skies, frequent atmospheric inversions that restrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts horizontal dilution, result in a relatively high potential for air pollution. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures The City of Ukiah is situated in the flat and narrow Ukiah Valley and the presence of the mountains on both the west and east sides of the valley tends to restrict the horizontal east-west movement of pollutants. The dominant wind direction in the Ukiah Valley is from the northwest to the southeast. Wind speeds in the central portion of the comm,...unity are moderate, with wind speeds of 4 mph or less occurring over 60 percent of the time. While the potential for air pollution is high in the Ukiah Valley, measurements provided by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District show that actual pollutant levels are relatively Iow due to the lack of upwind sources and the relatively Iow level of development in the local air basin. B. Si_qnificance Criteria: Air Quality Impacts would be significant if the project results in any conflicts with or obstructions to implementation of any applicable Air Quality Plan; violation of any air quality standard or substantial contributions to an existing or project air quality violation, including a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria for which the region is in nonattainment as defined by Federal or State regulations; exposure to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. C. Air Quality Standards: The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six "criteria pollutants." These include photochemical ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. California then adopted its own Clean Air Act in 1977, creating separate and stricter air quality standards. Each standard is measured as the duration of time for which a specific contaminant level cannot exceed. The standards are designed to protect the public from health hazards, visibility reduction, soiling, nuisance, impacts to crops, and other forms of air quality damage. D. Violation of a State Standard: If a county (or a portion of a county located within an air basin) exceeds the State standard for any of the criteria pollutants, the State Air Resources Board (ARB) can designate it as non-attainment for that substance. To evaluate the exceedance, the ARB uses standard criteria found in the State Health and Safety Code. It reviews air-sampling data to determine the nature and extent of the exceedance, and it makes a finding as to whether or not the exceedance was a highly irregular or infrequent event. If it is determined that the exceedance was an exceptional event caused by an act of nature or unusual human activity, it is deemed an exceedance and not a violation. Similarly, if the exceedance is an extreme concentration event (unusual meteorology) or an unusual concentration event (an anomalous exceedance which does not qualify as an exceptional event or extreme concentration event), it is not regarded as a violation, and the designation for the area does not change. The ARB will designate an area as attainment for a pollutant if the data shows that the State standard for that pollutant was not violated during the previous three (3) years. Again, exceedances affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations and, therefore, are not considered in the area designation process. As a result, an area may have measured concentrations that exceed a State standard and still be designated as attainment. A District that becomes designated as nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or sulfur dioxide is required ~'b'develop a plan for 'attaining the State standard for that particular pollutant. The plan must be submitted to the State Air Resources Board (ARB) for review and approval. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures Another possible consequence of a nonattainment designation is the ability to levy fees under certain conditions. Nonattainment Districts are authorized to levy a fee of up to $4.00 on motor vehicles registered in the District for the purposes of California Clean Air Act implementation. E. Existinq Air Quality in Ukiah' Th~9 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD) operates a monitoring site in Ukiah measuring concentrations of PM-10. Prior to August of 1988 the District also monitored several gaseous pollutants in Ukiah. In August of 1992, the District again established a multi-pollutant monitoring site in Ukiah for gaseous pollutants, which measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Air quality in Ukiah meets all Federal and State air quality standards with the exception of the State 24-hour PM-10 standard. This standard was exceeded on 3 days in 1990, 2 days in 1991, 0 days in 1992, 2 days in 1993, and 1 day in 1994. No exceedances have occurred since 1994. Sources of PM-10 include field burning, dust from unpaved roads and grading operations, combustion, and automobiles. 54 of the 58 counties in California are designated non-attainment for PM-10, which means that most of the California air basins exceed the permitted 24-hour concentration. The ARB does not require an Attainment Plan for jurisdictions that violate the PM- 10 standard. Ozone is one of the most serious pollutants affecting the State, and 30 of the 58 counties are designated non-attainment. While Mendocino County is attainment for ozone, the Ukiah (East Gobbi Street) sampling station has shown a steady increase in the annual hours of ozone levels exceeding the 40, 50, and 60 pads per billion thresholds since 1993. Additionally, the 80 ppb (State standard = 90 ppb) threshold has been exceeded twice over the past 4 years. However, based upon 1993-1995 data, the ARB has assigned Ukiah an "Expected Peak Day Concentration" (EPDC) level of 74 ppb, which means that any values above 70 ppb would be excluded from the designation process as extreme concentrations (Marcella Nystrom, ARB, personal communication, 4/24/97). Regardless of the attainment designation and the EPDC status, ozone continues to be a pollutant of concern to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. The major sources of ozone precursors are combustion sources such as, factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. Other State criteria pollutants measured in Mendocino County have routinely had maximum concentrations well below the applicable Federal or State standards. The only other pollutant of significant concern is Carbon Monoxide (CO). The local threshold for point source production of CO is 550 pounds per day. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas whose primary source is automobiles. Concentrations of CO measured in Mendocino County have never exceeded State or Federal standards, and current maximum concentrations measured in Ukiah are well below the applicable standards. F. Project Characteristics in Relation to Air Quality: The proposed development of the proposed commercial store on tl~e'subject property is expected to generate typical short-term air quality impacts (PM-10/dust) as a result of site preparation and grading activities during the construction phases. In addition, some vehicle emissions will be produced from heavy equipment, and ultimately from customer vehicles. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures G. Short-Term Construction Related Air Quality Impacts: Construction activities create a wide range of emissions, ranging from heavy equipment exhaust from to the air-bound organic gases from solvents, insulating materials, caulking materials, and "wet" pavement. However, while these emissions may contribute to the accumulation of substances that undergo the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone;"they are not regarded as significant short-term impacts. Dust generated by equipment and vehicles used in site preparation activities for this project would potentially cause the most substantial short-term construction-related air quality impacts. Fugitive dust is emitted both during site preparation, grading, and construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being dependent upon wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of construction activity and acreage affected by the construction activity. The highest potential for construction dust impacts typically occur during the late spring and summer, and early fall months when soils are dry. These small particulates are respirable particulates that can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease, and can alter lung function in children and the elderly when distributed in large enough concentrations. It can also rise into the lower troposphere and contribute to ozone production. Based on the project plans submitted for the development project, it is estimated that less than one and a half acres of earth will be exposed during the most intense site preparation activities for building pads, driveways, and landscaping. This is not considered a substantially large area, but such site preparation activities could cause potentially significant levels of dust (PM-10) if exposed soils are left unattended. Therefore, staff recommends that the dust control measures listed below be required to mitigate potential impacts. H. Miti_qation Measures for Dust (PMIO) Control: . All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and building construction shall institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust, particularly during windy days. 3. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control fugitive dust. . All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the transport of mud and dust onto public streets. 5. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall be used for earth moving operations. 6. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. I. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: Based upon the comprehensive nature of the recommended mitigation'"measures, staff is able to conclude that the project, as mitigated, will not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected violation of State PM-10 standards. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures J. Ozone Related Air Quality Impacts: The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District has indicated that ozone levels in the local air basin have not increased to the point of breeching the state standard. It is speculated that with the introduction of "reformatted" gasoline, in the late 1990's, the production of ozone causing substances was decreased. The proposed retail store will attract customers driving vehicles, which will contribute pollutants to the air basin that assist in the formation of ozone. However, the Traffic Study indicates that many of the vehicle trips will be pass-by customers, i.e. those that are already driving on the street and decide to stop at the subject facility. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District has not concluded that the proposed project will cause a direct exceedance of the ozone standard. However, as noted above, it is Staff's conclusion that it will contribute, and that the project must therefore participate in mitigation. The MCAQMD agrees with this conclusion. In response to this conclusion, the applicants have agreed to incorporate design feature mitigation measures into the project to promote alternative transportation. Defined stamped asphalt pedestrian walkways have been added through the parking lots to promote safe pedestrian access. One of these links the corner of Hospital Drive and East Perkins Street to the store entrance, and serves to strongly encourage pedestrian access to the store. The applicants have also incorporated bicycle racks for both customers and employees. Staff is able to conclude that these design features incorporated into the project adequately mitigate any pollutants generated from customer/employee traffic that contribute to the production of ozone. K. Miti_qation Measures for Ozone: None required. L. Impact SiRnificance After Mitiqation: The incorporation of design features into the project to promote and encourage pedestrian and bicycle use will help reduce automobile use and the production of pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE A. Settin_q: The subject properties are located in an older, urbanized area of the city and have been developed with a variety of different land uses. Due to these use patterns, the only substantial natural resources now consist of the nine mature Redwood trees located along the eastern boundary of the site. All or most of these trees will be removed to accommodate new parking stalls and landscape planter areas that will include both trees and lower-lying vegetation. B. Si.qnificance Criteria: Project impacts upon biological resources would be significant if any of the following resulted: Substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g.burrowing owls); · Substantial effect upon sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures · Substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon Federally protected wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Substantially interfere, with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or · Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy or ordinance); C. Impacts: 1. Plant Life: As noted above, nine Redwood trees located along the eastern perimeter of the site will be removed to accommodate the development proposed in this project, but these trees are not included on any listing for endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species and there is no local ordinance that requires their protection or preservation. The applicants initially intended to preserve at least two of these trees, but Planning Department staff recommends that all of these larger trees be removed due to the fact that the trees will eventually grow to heights that could adversely affect the project site and abutting lands. Specifically, staff is concerned with the potential for hazards and damage that trees extending above 70 feet could cause to the persons using the proposed development or abutting streets and properties. In addition, the location of these evergreen trees on the eastern property line will eventually cause the majority of the site to be shaded year round, which would adversely affect use patterns and landscaping dependent on natural lighting. 2. Mammals: The construction of the proposed commercial development in this urbanized and highly trafficked area will not hinder the movement of animals, nor significantly intrude on their habitat since no substantial habitat exists on this already developed site. Therefore, it is staff's conclusion that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the local deer population or other mammals utilizing the subject property. 3. Birds: The removal of trees for the development of the site will cause minor impacts to bird habitat in the area. However, these trees support no extensive populations of any rare or threatened bird species and will be replaced with a substantial number of trees that will be as suitable, or more suitable, for bird habitat. Therefore, no substantial impacts to bird life are expected. D. Miti.qation Measure: None required. E. Impact SiRnificance After Mitiqation: N/A. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. Settincl: The City of Ukiah is rich in historical resources, which includes an eclectic assortment of historic homes and commercial properties. Cultural resources are similarly abundant, and the City has provide~l'f6r the preservation and enhancement of its cultural heritage. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to historic and cultural resources would occur if implementation of the project would: · Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical or cultural resource; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure or district that may be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register; · Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure so that it results in the loss of a designated county landmark in the City of Ukiah; or · Result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature, or disturb any human remains. C. Impacts: The commercial buildings located on the project site are not listed in any local or other resources for architectural or historic values that require preservation. However, it has been determined that the existing structures do exceed 50 years in age and that the properties were used in the late 1800's by the Ukiah Farmer's Club, a unique cooperative association composed of local farmers and ranchers. The structures housing this use burned down in 1948, but the existing building on the southeast corner of the site was constructed as part of a planning mill that operated for approximately 20 years and has since been occupied by a variety of commercial uses. Due to the age of the existing buildings, their proposed demolition require the approval of a Demolition Permit. In this case, the applicants applied for a permit that was reviewed by the Ukiah Demolition Review Committee and approved by the Ukiah .City Council late last year. The approval of this permit requires implementation of several cultural preservation measures, including requirements that the entire site is photographed prior to demolition and that a publicly accessible "story-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history is developed as part of the project. The permit conditions also stipulate that the design of future development include design elements associated with the existing planing mill building and abutting railroad structures are included on any structures built on the site. These conditions are included as Mitigation Measures 7-10 for this project. The design for the proposed building does include features taken from existing buildings on the site and the abutting railroad depot property to the south, including the canopy roofs along three Sides of the building, the depot-inspired columns along three sides of the building, and the arched design of the wall colors used on the east and west building elevations. These features do not exactly mimic the architecture of the existing structures, but they do capture several important visual aspects of the building and it is staff's opinion that the proposed building design does not cause a significant adverse impact to the cultural resources in the area. .. Figure V.3-DD of the Historic and Archaeological Resources Element contained in the General Plan indicates that the subject property is not situated within an area of high cultural resource sensitivity. These areas are generally located along streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses. Accordingly, it is concluded that the likelihood of a prehistoric site being located on the subject property is remote, and that the probability of site preparation and construction ~ctivities disturbing and significantly impacting any prehistoric cultural resources is very Iow. However, to ensure that potential archeological resources are not significantly impacted, a standard mitigation measure is recommended that would halt construction in the event of a discovery, and require the applicants to hire a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the resources and develop mitigation measures as appropriate. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures '~-.-- pO. D. Miti.qation Measures . Future development of the site shall include design elements associated with the planing mill building, railroad/industrial historic theme, and/or other historic structures in the nearby · area. 8. Future development of the site shall include a publicly accessible "story-board' with photographs and text describing the historic building/site and its history. 9. The site and buildings shall be thoroughly photographed and documented. 10. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and City Planning Department staff shall be notified immediately of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and, if deemed necessary, to develop a precise mitigation program prior to the continuation of any site work. E. Impact SiRnificance After Mitiqation: These mitigations ensure that cultural resources will not be adversely affected and that potential impacts are reduced to levels that are not significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: A. Settinq: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. According to resource materials maintained by the Ukiah Planning Department, the projected maximum credible earthquake along this fault would be approximately 7.4 magnitude on the Richter scale. According to the Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County Southwestern Part published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the subject property is underlain by an "urban mix" that includes native soils mixed with non-native fill materials. Currently, at least 80 percent of the soils on the subject properties are almost all covered with asphalt and building foundations, with remaining areas containing trees and other vegetation. B. SiRnificance Criteria: A significant geologic impact would occur if a project exposed people or structures to major geologic features that pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life, or hazards such as earthquake damage (rupture, groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides), slope and/or foundation instability, soil erosion, soil instability, or other geologic problems that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques. C. Impacts: The subject properties are not situated on or near an Alquist-Priolo fault zone and have no known slope and/or foundation instability, soil instability, or other geologic hazards. In fact, it is staff's opinion that the primary impacts to soils on the site will result from minor grading and site preparation and the eventual covering over of open lands by paving and building found2tions. Such manmade structures currently cover 80 percent of the existing lot areas, but the site plan for the project shows that impervious soil coverings on the developed portions of the site will remain essentially the same, with open areas more evenly distributed throughout the site. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures It is possible that soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil could increase on the site if soils are left e)~posed to winds or storm waters for any substantial period of time. Such impacts would generally be short-term in nature, but they could be significant if normal grading and site preparation techniques are not utilized during the development phase of the project. In this case, however, the soil protection measures included as Mitigation Measures 2-6 in the Air Quality discussion, above, and as Mitigation Measure 11 in the Hydrology and Water Quality discussion below will sufficiently reduce soil impacts to less than significant levels. D. Miti_qation Measures: See Mitigation Measures in the Air Quality and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of this study. E. Impact Siqnificance After Mitiqation: It is anticipated that the measures referenced above will reduce potential short-term adverse effects to site soils to less than significant levels. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: A. Settin_q: Ukiah is generally regarded as a healthy City with relatively clean air and water. While there are some known toxic "spots" resulting from the past storage of hazardous materials underground, the City is not regarded as having a highly contaminated environment. Based on field review, and the review of contaminated site listings maintained by the City, it has been determined that the project site is in a clean and healthy state and not contaminated with toxic or hazardous materials that would present a significant health hazard for persons on the site. The project site is located over a mile north of the runway for the Ukiah Municipal Airport. This location places the property within an area designated for the B2 Compatibility Zone (Extended Approach-Departure Zone), where persons are subject to substantial risk and noise from aircraft commonly flying at or below 800 feet above ground level. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to the environment and the public associated with hazards and hazardous materials would result from a project if any of the following occurred: · Creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment by routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or from foreseeable upset and accident conditions; · Emission and/or handling of hazardous, acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/~ mile of an existing or proposed school; Location of a project on a listed hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; or ,. Impairment/interference with adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan; C. Impacts: The project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not meet any of the criteria listed above. Staff is, therefore, able to conclude that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact associated with hazardous materials e~'pbsure to the environment and the public. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures Given the distance from the airport runway's north end, it is unlikely that aircraft would actually operate below 800 feet above ground level. Based on this information, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed commercial development will not expose persons to significant risk from aircraft flying over the site and will not impair or interfere with the operations of the airport, and will not create an adve'rse environmental hazard. D. Miti.clation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: A. Settincl: Three major creeks flow through the City on their way to the Russian River, with some of the adjacent areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as being potentially subject to flooding events. In this case, the subject properties are not subject to large-scale or short-term flooding, and storm waters on the majority of the site drain south onto East Perkins Street. Domestic water quality, as well as the quality of creek waters in the City is rated as very good, and the project site is served by existing water supply mains located in the Perkins Street frontage. B. Si.qnificance Criteria: Significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would result from a project if water quality standards or waste discharge requirements were violated; groundwater and surface water quality and quantity were substantially altered; drainage patterns were substantially altered that would increase erosion/siltation and increase surface runoff; increase runoff that would exceed capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or add a substantial source of pollution; located on a 100-year floodplain; or expose people to hydrological hazards such as flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. C. Impacts: The Flood InsuranCe Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency reveal that the subject property is situated in Flood Zone "C", which is outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, no substantial adverse flooding impacts are anticipated. There are currently no storm water drainage facilities along the Hospital Drive or Perkins Street frontages, and the majority of drainage flows off the site and onto Perkins Street, and then south to storm drain inlets at the intersection with Orchard Avenue. Staff from the Public Works Department reviewed the proposed site development and determined there would be no substantial increase in the storm water runoff from the site, but that continued drainage onto public streets will continue to add to the cumulative adverse drainage conditions for the area during storm events. Based on this impact, the Public Works Department has required that the applicants either construct a drainage system to carry storm waters beneath East Perkins Street and into the Gibson Creek section that runs along the property to the south, or contribute to a fund that will be used to construct a public storm drain system along Perkins Street. This requirement will be recommended as a Condition of Approval for the project, but is not included as a recommended mitigation measure since the existing drainage conditions are not considered to be a significant adverse environmental effect and the project's contribution to this problem will not be substantial in scale. Public Works staff is also concerned that on-site drainage, patterns could be disrupted due to the demolition work for the removal of existing structures and pavement. While it is not likely that significant on-site drainage impacts will be caused by these activities, staff is concerned that Mitigated Negative Declaration for .,,~.~-~ SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures substantial and unregulated drainage could adversely affect the storm drainage that runs along East Perkins Street and cause significant adverse levels of water-borne erosion. Therefore, staff has required that the applicant prepare a Grading and Drainage Plan with an Erosion Control component to show clearly what drainage impacts will be caused and how they will be controlled. This measure is outlined as Mitigation Measure No. 11 below. Domestic water is available for the proposed projects through the public City water system that runs along East Perkins Street and staff of the Water and Sewer Department indicated the proposed commercial development could be served with only minor modifications to the on-site water system. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would cause a violation of any water quality standard, or have an adverse impact on the domestic water quality of future owners of the proposed parcels or the property owners below the site. No substantial increase in the amount of runoff water from the subject properties is expected since the percentage of soils covered by impervious material is expected to stay the same, or potentially, even decrease. Therefore, it is not anticipated the development of the proposed commercial building would have a significant adverse impact on groundwater supplies or the ability for the underlying water table to recharge. The proposed commercial building will be connected to the City-maintained sewer main that runs beneath the Perkins Street right-of-way. While the City's overall sewer system is nearing capacity, Public Utilities staff anticipates that a sufficient number of hookups to the system will be available to serve the proposed commercial use without extensive modifications to existing sewer systems or the development of new sewer system resources. D. Miti.qation Measures for Storm Drainaqe Detention and the Control of Erosion 11. A Grading and Drainage Plan that includes an Erosion and Sediment Transport Control Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer/Public Works Director for review and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any grading, site preparation activities, or construction of buildings and paving. A licensed civil engineer shall prepare all drainage calculations and other work done on this Plan. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: Based on standard engineering practices, it is concluded that the development of a comprehensive Erosion Control Plan found acceptable by the City Engineer will successfully reduce all potential erosion related impacts to levels of insignificance. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: A. Settin_q: The City of Ukiah is a compact urban environment, and fUnctions as the County seat for Mendocino County. Commercial, residential, and industrial land uses are planned for specific areas, as set forth in the 1995 Ukiah General Plan, with allowed and permitted land uses defined through distinct zoning districts that are outlined in the Ukiah Municipal Code. In this case, the subject properties are designated for C (Commercial) land uses and are located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) zoning district, where the proposed commercial land use is allowed. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures B. Significance Criteria: Significant land use impacts would occur if the projects substantially conflict with established uses, disrupt or divide an established community, or result in a substantial alteration to present or planned land uses. Proposed project consistency with the Ukiah General Plan and zoning and any other applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential land use impacts. C. Impacts: The proposed commercial use is an allowed land use that is generally consistent with all of the land use requirements applicable to this site. These include Ukiah General Plan goals and policies, the use and development standards for the C-1 Zoning District, and the Downtown Commercial Development Guidelines. The proposed development is also consistent with the criteria of the B2 Airport Compatibility Zone, including those for lot coverage, density, and acceptable uses. The proposed retail drug store use is also highly compatible with the existing retail uses that extend along this section of Perkins Street, and with the nearby medical offices and the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. The proposed infill development will cause incremental increases to existing traffic levels and the ambient noise of the neighborhood, but there is nothing in the design of the project that is expected to cause these adverse impacts to be significant. D. Miti_clation Measure: None required. E. Impact Si.clnificance After Mitiqation: N/A I. NATURAL/MINERAL RESOURCES: A. Settin_cl: The subject properties contain soils that have been altered substantially by fills of non-native soils and inorganic materials, and are not recognized for any substantial valuable natural resources. Construction materials derived from natural resources off-site will be used to develop the proposed project. B. SiRnificance Criteria: Impacts to natural resources would be substantial if the proposed development project resulted in the loss of significant or locally important materials such as minerals, gravel, sand or wood. C. Impacts: The proposed development project will use sand, gravel, rock, wood, concrete, and other naturally occurring building materials that are readily available in the Ukiah Valley, so there will be no extraction of such materials from the project site. Furthermore, it is not anticipated the proposed commercial development would demand excessive amounts of these materials or cause a direct increase in mining activities, nor would it disrupt any substantial natural habitat or migration corridors. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed project~.would not have a significant adverse impact on natural resources. D. Miti.clation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si_qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures Xl. NOISE: A. Settinq: The subject properties are located in a densely developed area of the urban landscape that has the typical background noise sources expected in an urban environment, including automobile and truck traffic, collections of human voices, street working crews and heavy equipment, etc. The site is also subject to aircraft noise from aircraft flying over the site, as discussed in Section VII (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and Section IX (Land Use) of this study. B. Siqnificance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant noise impact if it exposes people to or generates noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance; causes a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or causes a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project. C. Impacts: The Ukiah General Plan identifies the significant noise sources in the City as transportation noise coming from major roadways, railroad operations, industrial plants, and airports. The focus of the Noise Element in the General Plan is to protect the noise-sensitive land uses from transportation, industrial, railroad, and airport noise through the establishment of noise contours around these noise sources in the community, where typical noise can exceed the defined threshold of 60 dB (decibels). The location of the proposed commercial structure in the northern approach/departure area for the Ukiah Municipal Airport will expose persons to noise from aircraft flying over the site. The maximum noise levels projected for this area in the Airport Master Plan would be 55-60 CNEL on an average day and 60-65 CNEL on a busy day, but these noise levels are not considered hazardous to humans and will be too short-lived to violate the equivalent decibel standards listed in the City's Noise Ordinance. Furthermore, the typical aircraft-related noise impacts in this area are expected to decline to less than 55 CNEL by the year 2015 as the result of improvements to airport facilities and the aircraft using them. Therefore, while the aircraft noise will be a nuisance for future users of the site, it will not cause any significant adverse effects or hazards and will require no mitigation. The subject properties are also located within 100 feet of the railroad tracks for the Northwest Pacific Railroad (NCRA), but no immediate noise impacts from trains are expected since no trains currently use these tracks due to funding and maintenance constraints. Nuisance-level noise impacts from rail traffic could be caused if NCRA secures sufficient funding to start trains running again, but substantial noise effects from such train operations are not anticipated since such train-induced noise occurrences are typically infrequent, short-lived, and too Iow in volume to cause hazards to humans. In addition, the proposed commercial structure will be constructed with concrete masonry walls covered by stucco, with no windows or other large openings on the western wall that faces the tracks. Therefore, noise levels from running trains are not expected to adversely affect the users of this site. The City Noise Ordinance limits the maximum level of noise that can emanate from commercial units to 60 decibels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In this case, there is no evidence that the operation of the proposed retail store will cause these noise levels to be exceeded regularly or significantly, and no specific mitigation measures will be required. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures Short-term noise impacts from machinery and general construction activities will occur during the actual construction of the proposed commercial development, but these impacts are not expected to reach hazardous levels since the Noise Ordinance prohibits work before 7:00 a.m., as described above. Therefore, no mitigation measures related to such noise generators will be required. D. Miti_qation Measure: N/A D. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A VII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: A. Setting: The 2000 census indicates that the population of Ukiah is 15,597 persons, with a slow and stable growth rate. The population has not changed much in the past several years, and it has only been very recently that it appears to be noticeably increasing. The 1995 General Plan projected a population of 17,291 for the year 2000, which is 1694 more than the current population. B. Si_qnificance Criteria: Population and housing impacts would be significant if the project induced substantial direct or indirect (e.g., road extensions) population growth in an area and displaced substantial numbers of existing houses and/or substantial numbers of people, thus requiring replacement housing elsewhere. C. Impacts: The proposed commercial development project will not provide any increases to local housing stocks, but no adverse impacts to area housing levels are anticipated since the majority of the employees for the proposed business are expected to be persons that already reside in the area. D. Miti¢lation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES: A. Settinq: The City of Ukiah is a small, but urbanized, area with a full complement of public services that include police and fire services, public schools, public works and utilities, and emergency services. B. Significance Criteria: Impacts to public services would be significant if the proposed retail use resulted in adverse physical impacts upon capacit~'.that would require the construction of new public facilities or substantial alteration to existing governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service levels or performance levels. C. Impacts: Staff discussed the proposed project with the City Police, Parks, Utilities, and Fire Departments, as well as with the Ukiah Unified School District. City Police Department: Discussions with the City Police Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in .the need for additional police officers, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to serve the future residents of the expanded apartment complexes. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 3 ~'~' City Community Services Department: Discussions with the City Community Services Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for additional staff or park facilities, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to maintain the current City- owned park facilities. City Utilities Department: Discussions with the City Utilities Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for new or expanded electrical generation sources, nor will it cause the need for additional staff to maintain the current City-owned electric service facilities. The amount of electricity needed by this commercial use will not be substantial, and is available from current generation capacity. The City's sewage treatment plant is reaching capacity, but Utilities Department staff has indicated that it anticipates hookups will be available for all of the facilities in the commercial structure at the time of construction. City Fire Department: The City Fire Marshal indicated that in-house sprinklers will be required and additional hydrants will probably be required to provide optimum fire protection of the commercial structure. However, these standard measures will be implemented at the building stage of the project and will have no adverse impacts on the Fire Department's ability to provide adequate fire protection to the buildings, and therefore, no mitigation is required. Ukiah Unified School District: No impacts to area schools are anticipated from this commercial land use. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: N/A XIV.TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC/ CIRCULATION: A. Settinq: The project site is situated on East Perkins Street, which is the primary "gateway" arterial street accessing the City from Highway 101. East Perkins Street handles a significant amount of vehicles on both a daily basis and during the morning, afternoon, and evening peak periods. Si_qnificance Criteria: According to the Ukiah General Plan Circulation Element, the minimum acceptable level of service (LOS) on City commercial oriented arterial streets is LOS "D." Other criteria include whether the project would have substantial effects upon air traffic patterns; whether the project would contribute to the cumulative traffic impact on nearby intersections; whether the project would increase traffic hazards due tol design features; whether the project has inadequate emergency access; whether the project has inadequate parking capacity; and whether the project would create conflicts with adopted policies, programs and plans for alternative transportation. B. Impacts: The following text lists the impact criteria and provides a discussion/analysis: 1. Will the project Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the Jevel of service standards established in the Ukiah General Plan, or congestion at intersections) ? Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures According to the Traffic Study prepared by TJKM, dated December 2004, the proposed retail store will not result in daily trips exceeding designated street service standards or the maximum intersection levels of service established by the Ukiah General Plan. The Study takes into account the number of trips currently generated by the retail uses on the site, as well as pass-by traffic. Recent traffic counts taken as part of the Traffic Study reveal that existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic at nearby intersections together with traffic generated from the project will not reduce the LOS beyond the "D" level. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the Study and concurs with it findings. 3. Will the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed retail store will not result in any change in air traffic patterns, air traffic levels or the locations of air traffic that would constitute substantial safety risks because it is an infill project well below the allowed height and the proposal is consistent with the policies and standards of the Ukiah Airport Master Plan. 4. Will the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ? This project will not substantially increase hazards due to project design features. No new roadways or intersections are proposed for this project. Access to East Perkins Street is currently existing, and the new encroachment onto Hospital Drive will lessen the number of vehicles currently "forced" to use the East Perkins access/egress. However, the Department of Public Works has expressed a concern about the left hand turn into the site from eastbound East Perkins Street. The traffic Study confirms that this movement is problematic, and poses a safety hazard. The Traffic Study suggests alternatives for mitigating this potentially significant impact, and the Department of Public Works has indicated a preference for a right turn in (from westbound East Perkins Street) and right turn out only from the site onto westbound East Perkins Street. The applicants agree. A Mitigation Measure is recommended below to eliminate this potentially significant adverse traffic impact. 5. Will the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project will not result in any conditions which would result in inadequate emergency access. The City Police and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposal and have determined that adequate safety access is provided. 6. Will the project result in inadequate parking capacity? The proposed project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. The applicants have proposed a total of 61 parking spaces where 48 are required by the Ukiah Municipal Code. 7. Will the project conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? This proposed project will not conflict with any adopted programs, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposal includes bicycle racks and benches on-site, and bus stops are in close proximity. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 8. Will the project contribute to the cumulative traffic impact on nearby intersections ? The City and the Mendocino County Staff have recently concluded a long and important cooperative planning effort for the "Brush Street Triangle." After many years of negotiation, the City and the County entered into an agreement that requires the County to adopt traffic impact fees for developers in the unincorporated Brush Street Triangle area to help mitigate cumulative traffic impacts on key nearby intersections. The City agreed to adopt a similar program for development in the City limits that would similarly affect the key intersections. The City has identified twenty (20) vacant and/or underutilized parcels that if developed or redeveloped would contribute traffic to intersections that are expected to reach maximum capacity levels in the near future. The projected costs to make needed improvements to these intersections total approximately $4,500,000.00. The City has determined that approximately 25% of the cost must be funded by "background traffic" rather than the traffic caused by new development. This results in the total cost for new development to decrease to approximately $3,375,000.00. The Department of Public Works has calculated the fees for the subject project to be approximately $7,888.00, which is based on an increase of approximately 3,000 additional square feet of retail space on the site. C. Miticlation Measures: 12. Plans submitted for a Building Permit shall detail the right turn in (from westbound East Perkins Street) and right turn out only from the site onto westbound East Perkins Street movement. A "pork chop" right turn in only median design at the encroachment or other design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be detailed on the plans. 13. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicants shall pay a cumulative traffic impact fee of $7,888.00 to mitigate the projects' cumulative contribution of traffic into key nearby intersections. D. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: The right turn in (from westbound East Perkins Street) and right turn out only from the site onto westbound East Perkins Street will eliminate the safety hazard associated with customers attempting to enter the site from eastbound East Perkins Street. XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS A. Settinq: Energy resources are readily available to the citizens of Ukiah. These include electricity, natural gas, propane, and alternative sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric. B. Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant impact if it causes the use of fuel or energy in a wasteful manner, or encourages activities using large amounts of fuel or energy. C. Impacts: Fuels and energy will be consumed during the construction of the proposed commercial building, but the precise amounts cannot be determined because the length of time certain heavy equipment is used is unknown. However, based on the sizes of the proposed apartment complexes, there is no evidence that the fuels and energy consumed during construction activities or the future use of the newly constructed apartments will be significant. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to speculate that the construction crews and future residents will waste energy or fuels, and accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed projects will not have significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59' Marin Ventures ~~ D. Mitigation Measures' None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A XVl. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING' AB 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this Mitigated Negative Declaration require the applicants to incorporate or comply with the important Mitigation Measures listed in Table 1, below. Table 1' MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION M EASU RES Aesthetics Air Quality Historical and Cultural Resources Hydrology and MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Applicants with Staff oversight and Approval Applicants and Grading/site preparation contractors, as well as routine inspections by DPW Staff Applicants with Staff oversight Applicants and Grading/site preparation contractors, with routine inspections by DPW Staff HOW AND WHEN 1) Inclusion of a lighting plan prior to the submittal of a Building Permit 2) Confirmation that the final project design (plans submitted for a Building Permit) meets all Demolition Permit mitigation measures regarding historical design D.uring all phases of construction During all site preparation and construction phases Prior to the approval of permits for site preparation and construction phases of project VERIFICATION Planning Dept. staff Planning and Public Works Departments staff Planning Department staff FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY Applicants Applicants Applicants in the event of a discovery Applicants Public Works Department staff Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 3_9 MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation /Traffic /Circulation MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Public Works Department staff HOW AND WHEN At the time of submittal for building permits VERIFICATION Public Works Department staff FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY Applicants XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: A. Potential to Degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO X B. Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES NO X C. Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES NO X D. Substantially Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO X Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 2O XVlll. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this Initial Study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described within the Initial Study will be incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required. Title Director/Environmental Coordinator Charles Stump Print Name February 16, 2005 Date Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 21 RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY . City of UkiahGeneraIPlan 1995 The Linkaqe Between Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1993. The Land Use - Air Quality Linka.qe: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1997. Transportation-Related Land Use Strateqies to Minimize Mobile Source Emissions: An Indirect , , , , 10. Source Research Project, State Air Resources Board, 1995. A Source of Air Quality Conditions Includinq Emissions Inventory, Ozone Formation, PM10 Generation, and Mitiqation Measures for Mendocino County, CA. Sonoma Technologies, Inc., November, 1998. Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part, California U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, January, 1991. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975). Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996. Traffic Study, prepared for the project by TJKM, dated December 2004. Correspondence/discussions with the following City staff and Agency representatives: a. Chuck Yates, Fire Marshal b. Thomas McArthur, Sewer/Water Eng. Tech. c. Cindy Sauers, Electrical Distribution Engineer d. Diana Steele, Public Works Director/City Engineer e. Tim Eriksen, Senior Civil Engineer f. Rick Sands, Engineering Associate g. John Williams, Police Chief h. Paul Richey, Airport Manager Mitigated Negative Declaration for SDP 04-59: Marin Ventures 22 MAJOR SITE D~VELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 04-59: MA~,IN VENTURES ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures b,,' f!~e a[:~¢lic:aSfe 8i!" c,,~;afitv rT",;~r',~c;s~,-~c:r:t or air tr',e fo!'ow~na deieri'."'iinations. Would the a_). Cocfiict with or ,.)b::,, u~_., ................................ '.--:---L- _ ,.~ ___. '-_._.~zz_ __': .~. ~___.__....'. .... --t--~---_-.~_:_-___L_~_ ncreese (',f ai'~',' crter~', 3-~l,~tqt',' for v','hic'h !iL-je ---:' ...... ' ~' -'-- -_.- ..... '_:-4._'__~ .... : ........ t~.._._ ~_z..: '_%_.'-.z.' L* .__ '¢ ' . .... _" ~._')r~l .. (~.gio~ is. r~on-a,.tat- ~"~ent ~.J -,der 3,- applir'abie ~- .......................................... ~ _%__ .~_m'__ _ feder:-ii or $1;-,te ambir-~nt air r,;:~;lit,, ...... : -_--2 ......... _.z: ' '_~ .... _c'. ' ' '-_ '%_:_ ...... .: ...... -'J2:' :.% _.,~L_. (lF:('Ji'dinc: re eas no ":'?,is~-, c",s '¢.'hir.!. --- ' ~' '-'[ ........ ~ ........ :I. _±_'__._:_z.,~ .... '--' L'-' .___'-ZJ.2zt:_' z ....... ~-'_~ "-L_L_ ._ "~' "~'-' ~'"-' (iu3ii~.'-*:tive t!"!i'esI-ioid.~ for' (h;t-orl(~' ,c~_ ~E.x[)_,.:;se sensitive rece2iots to substapt!al ............................... :'__L_ __:: '_J.'. :_'__.::._~:__ :_ ........ : _~_:.-__~ ...... :.:..%' '%_y · ~__:_~:J_ ..... ................. : ....... ~__ _-___ -. _ :_:_:: : ~...'y_,L':':. ~_~' _". ~ !:;! .... Lr.~''. !:" ;-_ : '-.:,!_! .._.L;_e L_Z; !.LCz__ I_%. "-._':_-'_ ! Li_~-~L!L~:L: ~;_._ _ L;iZ_ ;'~ ! L'Z._.~.i-.-_'!:.i Unless Less X ............ ~ ~. ,'_ ........ - ..... X ."eau~;~tinns or by the C3tifornla Department cf F;sh and Game or U.S. Fish and Wilctlife Service? , ?rotected ' *~' d -~ bv w~i.,d, ids as, c~ined Section 404 of the 1 !Z-?-¢5~-_L%L'L._ *% .... 2Ez__+_TJ _.L.+_Z_~._.~.L.2 ..... L..: .... ........... ~,r.,~, ~.oo~. ,.,was,.a~= e,(,.~ ,.t~ouqh Q~d~t~t ~ X means? ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures VVou!d protectincJ.._.__b!2_,~o_~ical resources. .~::uch a~s tree p~-eservatiof p_dicy or ordinance'.: Vi ...... GEOI. OGY AND SOILS' Wo-~,i~i the p~": "'~_:: ...... ,:~,.,~ ~,,.~ scverse effects, inciud~!g ihe risk of loss.,._in~uri~L or deatt~ 'r!_- "~,"r' .......... . ....... , I,,VO, v,: I. .......... !.l !:22_4pture of a k,:r'io,Ao earthqua~.e fault, as E a rth a u a ke Fsult Zc) n in g_ ~_~c:,IOg~st for the area ..... substar;[ial ..,.~..: ~au~tr .e~el to ~ v I~,~ ICE., of Division of ,Vline~: and GeoloqL, L °n ..... :,$ ~:,..,~a, Publication 42. ...... _.iii. S_ 1 ro__q.~.~ s e is m i c Pofent~l',y ~ i.._!q n if ica n t Less Than No k!iP ~ c t ~i~anifica nt Unless ~j;~ r,. i fi ca n ~ X ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures ;¢1. GEOLOGY AND $C)it,$ Cc,.:-~iir'~!,,'ecli:: %~ou t fM _e_.g_r..o.j~ c) unst3ble, or that wodld become unstable as a res~ t of the project, and :,3otentia! result dj Be located on creaiin~ suE~sia':'~ti31 risks ~,7:, life or a~oi:';erlx 9 MA7 IERiAL5: Would the, of hazardous materials into ;he enviro~ment? c') E'nit hazardouq e~mis~-:io~-: or' a;:~r,,-~!e : ...... :- ......... ~ ~_.._"-2 ~.~"_._L_~:__ ~__~ .... : ''~X%--'~'.~ ~z~t ~':.~.~' ':. or acutely hazardous materials. waste within one-quarter mile of an ,~,i~qn-~ nr ......... ~ ~ ~.M:. _d] Be located on a site wnict~ is - i~azardous materials si!c..,,-_L__c.,q!72E(LE:.~t.~_uj::~L~£[].t___!~.-._, Governr~enl Code Sectic;~; 65962.5 a~id. as a result ,,~,.ou!d it create a siqr~ific3nt~-.~.'.a~ ........ u to the p(~'biic or tine environment? lJniess fr~corpor'aled Less Than Sj.qrtificant ,pact No i_m_l:) a c t X ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures '¢!il, klYD, ROL..OGY WoL:~o ~','" .':_:~ -" WATER OL,~AL!TY' Y-:l 8 u b s t a n ti al bf_ a l! e r th e e x i s tin q_ !~'_'O_ i_!'~ ~!.. _r.N t!_e_~ir! ¢_f__{!._sL~/_._~J3!k! !J k,lu2!,_J~Lt I_!._V_'L-,9 ~_,_ ,! ~_!.5/. :'-.J J!,-!_%f ~ !l _% cl. fi_..',_ ri ~ {{_/'~ f__ :%_. !2! .~ ;' 2 '_ ................................................... - c,~, F]t;,-~: VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY !'Continued)' Would the ~ecl:' Siar.,ificant ~act. Potentialf~ IJ n [ e s s Less Than N/A .~[D~ if ica nt t_mpact Incorpor;~ted N/A ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures Poi.enti S_j~c nific~:nt Unless t'¢.. COU'.'.':;e Of 3 St~,';';:::$'i 5r r[ve:r o:' St bstsntiali'v ............ : ........................... :.. _ :: .................... ;_ ........ ~-_+_ .:_ _.:. ....... : . S!t6~ r' _,, ...................... ~ .............. : ........ : ................. .:: .............. :: ...... _._:__: .~. $ tO i'i¥t ,.v;:xte ' dj SiR ~,.')~__ "d'~itional sources of ,.:,c'.~iuted ,:1 J LI . . .................................................... iX. LAND ii~ r:,.. ,., ,_ ANr':,. F!_,qN,~ii',,'G' Wo;~id the pf ojec ;__. t j-..?_ AL9_jke(j' ',_'.?_ c) C o n i lie t ¢,,it h ':~ -'.,_,__' -' ~'' 2Z1_2__7__.~_ '. ]~_'___._.2 _.'£Z :%'_"-_'L. '_'.:_ p!a~-~ or n3tu;al cor'n~,'nunit¥ co:-~serva'L~on [.31'3n'"r S i~gj'~ i fi___L~a,rjt N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X N/A ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures '._'__:_"._ .... '__~_:'~:_ :'Z_ :_?_:_..LL__' ..... _,r:_'.-_ 2 ? ' Xl. NOISE: W3uld the proi?L~j,z;EA~.,.;{__t~}.:' : ::~ i :_..!:_._ .i ::: _ :!!::__:! ti.e.g._t_.: !Z~ :_t_:L._!::,:_:,_ E: levels? Xi!. POPULATION AND HOUSiI'4G: Wou!d the ~Lr_£iect: home. s and busJr',esses) or i,-'~'- '' ' ~u Il ectl',,' (for !!-.':._rql:d~n_.__z"::.:x.L,:p._',:2219_r'_,._O~ r r..}.:.c2S_~L_o._t.._h_.r: _!_L-'.' fra s tu ct u re ')? Potentiail~L :j.gnificar~t Significant !1o ImPact N/A ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures Wouid the. Xlil. PUBLICSERVlC~S:WouM~he ~_ Resu!: in substantial adverse ..~o~,.,,~,~u , ,e provision of new o'.' pr~',/sloal~v ptnvsicB~' altered -,~, ..... ,.~.-,.-~o~ acce~tabie service rat os, r',~-~')or~ tiiT~,-~':: nr o~'h~r b(~rViCGS '~r ,: J._. 2:c::.~ -4: ,z ~.~_ L .... ~:.~,~_'-~.:_._t L %. Y &LLLJ_:::..~':~ LL'.: Pc.,.tenti _S_ignificant Unless Less T h~-,n .S_'!~gnifica nt L~ u-;tersectionsl? I ' ........ h'~ lh e of serv,~ce standard ?~&_[OZ._$~es N nated roads? ~ Resul in a c,,an~%L&z~Lc~.~,jb._p~tten either ¢n"- increase in t~ ,u~,:.,,,_~,, ~ ~, ~¢~ resu~u~ ~nsuub~¢,-' '~'-' ..... ,~,¢i;;~' safe ¢) Substantiallz_ feature SLICh aS a share curve or intersections? ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures XlV. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION (Cont.): Would the project: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS' Would the proiect: Potenti Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X No Impact X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact ATTACHMENT 2 Environmental Checklist for Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59: Marin Ventures MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 2005 MEMBERS PRESENT Kevin Jennings, Vice-Chair James Mulheren, Chair Ken Anderson Mike Whetzel OTHERS PRESENT Listed below, Respectively STAFF PRESENT Charley Stump, Planning Director Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Sandra Liston, Associate Planner Kevin Ingram, Code Compliance Coordinator Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MEMBERS ABSENT Judy Pruden The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Mulheren at 6:30 p.m. Jin the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE David Edwards led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION Site visits for items 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D were verified. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 23, 2005 and March 9, 2005 ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Whetzel, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve the February 23, 2005 minutes, as submitted. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve the March 9, 2005 minutes, as submitted. 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. 7. APPEAL PROCESS Chair Mulheren read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting, the final date for appeal is April 4, 2005. 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE Major Site Development Permit 04-59, Major Site Development Permit No. 04-43, Major Site Development Permit No. 04-44, and Amendment to Major Site Development Permit No. 04-41 were legally noticed in accordance with the Ukiah Municipal Code. Afachment # MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 March 23, 2005 go PUBLIC HEARING Major Site Development Permit No. 04-59, as submitted by Marin Ventures to allow the construction of a 14,049 square foot retail drug store on two contiguous parcels with a total area of 1.46-acre. These parcels are located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District and are currently occupied by two commercial structures that will be demolished to allow the new construction. The site is located at 308/310 East Perkins Street. Planning Director Stump stated the Demolition Permit Review Committee unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve a Demolition Permit to allow the removal of the existing structures on the site, and Council approved this permit and accompanying mitigated measures in November 2004, as recommended by the Committee members. During the Committee discussions concerning the demolition of the buildings on the site, Chair Pruden provided a comprehensive history of the site uses during the last 50 years. She referred to a Sanborn map and old photographs displaying the original business on the site, as well as the abutting property containing the Ukiah Railroad Depot structure. The Committee discussed the extensive remodeling projects that have occurred on the site, and determined that the existing buildings contain no substantial architectural or historical connection to the original site development. The Committee recommended to the City Council that the historical impacts caused by the demolition of the building be mitigated by extensively photographing the building using these photographs/historical photographs and text to prepare a storyboard exhibit. The Committee also recommended that salvage materials from the existing structures be incorporated into the storyboard and/or new structure, and that the design of the new building include architectural features/elements of the Railroad/industrial buildings originally developed on the site. Associate Planner Lohse reported on the project analysis as follows: · The new development will house a retail store and pharmacy on two contiguous parcels located in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The project also includes the development of new driveways, parking accommodations, access lanes to the parking facilities, and a drive-thru pharmacy window, and new landscape planters around the perimeters of the property. · The project was not exempt from CEQA review, where an Initial Study was prepared where potentially significant adverse impacts related to lighting aesthetics, short-term air quality impacts, historical resources, and hydrology and erosion were identified. Staff concluded the project will require the adoption of mitigation measures and a mitigation-monitoring program to lessen the above-named impacts to levels that are not significant. · The subject property is designated in the Ukiah General Plan for C (Commercial) land uses that allow the development of the proposed retail commercial use. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element policy of the Ukiah General Plan, and the site designs are compatible with the siting criteria for new development pertinent to location, zoning discretion, public street access and access to the buildings, maximum building density, and connection to public utilities. The General Plan's Community Design Element defines Perkins Street as a "gateway" to the City of Ukiah, where an appropriate visual presentation is important and higher design standards for commercial development are necessary. The proposed retail store/pharmacy is an allowed used in the C-1 (Community Commercial) Zoning District, and the project complies with the applicable development standards for building height, lot area, and required yard areas, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 March 23, 2005 including the development standards for access/parking, landscaping, and signage, as specifically addressed on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines for commercial projects outside the Downtown Design District relative to parking, pedestrian orientation, compatibility with surrounding development, and building design (architecture/building materials/colors), lighting, energy conservation, outdoor storage and service areas, and landscaping, as specifically addressed on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. The conceptual landscaping plan indicates that only one of the existing Redwood trees will be retained on the eastern perimeter of the site. The project is consistent with the Airport Master Plan, and according to the Land Use Compatibility Map, the site is located in Compatibility Zone B-2 that lists proposed retail commercial land use as "normally acceptable" in this compatibility zone. Mr. Lohse advised that Planning Commissioner Judy Pruden will not be in attendance at tonight's hearing. However, she has submitted specific design recommendations that include modifications to building colors, roofing materials, the tower roof design, canopy supports, and the tower logo sign, as specifically addressed in her memorandum to the Planning Department and Planning Commission dated March 16, 2005. She further recommended the project building incorporate a design reflective of the 1920s period rather than the proposed mission-style design. Staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site Development Permit with the findings and conditions imposed. Commissioner Anderson asked how staff views Commissioner Pruden's project recommendations/modifications. Mr. Stump stated staff reviewed her comments and is generally supportive and believes they deserve discussion. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:48 p.m. Grant Leshin of Marin Ventures indicated that as the project evolved, direct architectural design ties were made to the Railroad Deport, including the matter of providing a detailed proposed storyboard telling the history of the site and corresponding area. He commented on the potential for increased traffic impacts to Perkins Street as a result of the project, and stated according to the Traffic Study prepared by TJKM traffic consultants, dated December 2004, the proposed retail establishment will not result in daily trips exceeding the designated street service standards or the maximum intersection levels of service (LOS) established by the Ukiah General Plan. The City Public Works Department concurred with the study findings. He stated that the project would contribute to the cumulative traffic impact on nearby intersections, and pay into the City's Traffic Impact Fee Program for vacant and underutilized parcels to help mitigate the corresponding impact when they are developed. He commented on the proposed attractively designed streetscape to say that the landscaping coverage exceeds the 20 percent required and that the choice of vegetative groundcovers, plants, and tree species proposed for the perimeter planting areas will be developed in conjunction with the City's Landscape Design Guidelines for the purpose of enhancing the project and area. He addressed the concept of pedestrian orientation, and indicated that a well-designed pedestrian access will be available in front of the building to include broad covered sidewalks along the eastern and southern sides of the building with benches for seating and bike racks installed to encourage non-vehicular access. He also MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 March 23, 2005 commented on the issue of lighting, and stated the lighting plan will be effective in keeping light from spilling onto abutting streets/properties, or into the night sky, and fully complies with the lighting standards for Ukiah, including compliance with the "dark sky" guidelines. The project will implement adequate fire protection measures for the building, as well as incorporate a new fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the property and street improvements to ensure public safety. He briefly commented on the issue of access and parking, and stated the site is currently accessed by the use of an "all turns" driveway on Perkins Street. Vehicular access to the site will be improved via a "right-in" and "right-out" on Perkins Street, as well as the addition of a new "all turns" driveway on Hospital Drive. Albert Krauss is opposed to the project, and his major concerns are addressed as follows: > The proposed project design does not adequately reflect/preserve the historical context of the area. > The net effect of the project would have social implications/consequences, and would not be a "good fit" for Ukiah because the establishment would interfere with the quality of life in the community. > The project would reduce Ukiah's unique qualities and contribute to the vanishing "funkiness" of existing developments/businesses that provide for a variegated mix of "market" atmosphere, as well as serve as the economic source of income for many people. :> The City has too many similar, architecturally displeasing box-like commercial establishments, and that soon the community will be "jammed to the gill" with the same, resembling the appearance of such cities as Santa Rosa. Michael Toms is opposed to the project, and commented that, in his opinion, the project appears to be a "done deal", and that his comments in opposition to the project would make little, if any, difference. He acknowledges that the Planning Department worked conscientiously on its review/analysis of the project, as well as with guiding/assisting the applicant through the planning and discretionary review phases. He commented on the matter of the law, and understands that the property owner has a legal right to sell his property and to whom, and, therefore, asked the Commission to "pause and reflect" on adverse effect the project would have on the community. He further asked the Commission to consider what is being given up and what the community is getting by way of another drug store. He stated the proposed architecture and color scheme do not complement the surrounding buildings and/or effectively reflect the character of the neighborhood. He expressed concern that the proposed development would have an impact on the salmon that spawn in Gibson Creek that abuts the project. He addressed the traffic problems that exist on Perkins Street especially during peak hours, and questioned whether the traffic study conducted for the project was adequately assessed relative to increased traffic impacts resulting from the new development. George Kilker is the owner of Curry's Furniture, and leases the warehouse on the site for storage purposes. He questioned why he was not advised of the proposed new project plans. Mike Gayeski owns the Outlet Store on the site, and questioned why he was not advised of the proposed new project. He stated he employees between five and six full-time persons, as well as between five and six pad-time high school students. He is not generally opposed to redevelopment. However, the proposed new development does not complement and/or capture the architectural characteristics of the Train Depot. He expressed concern that the proposed design for the Walgreens store would not adequately reflect the historical aspects MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 March 23, 2005 of the existing site. He is not supportive of the project that appears, in his opinion, to be a "slam dunk" deal. He recommends additional consideration be given to the project because more work/evaluation needs to be done. Chair Mulheren addressed Mr. Gayeski's comment that he was not made aware of the Demolition Permit, and stated the matter was publicly noticed when reviewed by the Demolition Permit Review Committee and the City Council. He stated it appears that the tenants on the site may have problems with the landlord, which is not the topic of tonight's discussion. Mr. Gayeski stated that was not advised of the proposed Demolition Permit, and understood that tonight's discussions would not address tenant/landlord problems. Nanette G. Kiliker questioned whether the issues of traffic congestion/site circulation/traffic signals in the area were adequately addressed during the planning phase. ,She expressed concern that Walgreens would not allow for higher paying jobs to ensure the current residents and their children would have the opportunity to afford to purchase homes. She further expressed concern regarding land use decisions that create the potential for a change reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies, which ultimately destroy neighborhoods. Justine Toms is opposed to the project, and commented that the project was not well planned. Michael Toms is opposed to the removal of the Redwood trees on the eastern portion of the site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:17 p.m. Ken Anderson stated that staff prepared a very thorough staff report. As a new Planning Commissioner, he has been observing past developments in the community to better understand the design standards/guidelines of the Ukiah General Plan, the various Zoning Districts, and for commercial projects inside/outside the Downtown Design District that help shape/complement the Downtown area and/or neighborhoods. He sympathizes with the persons opposing the project, stating the project does not effectively correspond with the goals/policies of the Ukiah General Plan in terms of maintaining/preserving the quality of life for the citizens of the community. He expressed concern that the "big picture" and/or "spirit" of the General Plan are not adequately being considered for projects. However, the proposed new development would be an upgrade to the existing buildings on the site. He expressed mixed feelings about the project, especially the wage scale and development in general on the east side of Perkins Street. The City is ultimately responsible to make sure that the quality of life issues are upheld. He understands that the money is not available to upgrade/improve City intersections, streets/sidewalks and other types of infrastructure necessities. He recommends that it may be necessary to take a break from approving developments that do not enhance the quality of life to allow for those who do, as well as give the City the opportunity to assess and plan for infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Jennings addressed Commissioner Pruden's comments on the project, and did not favor changing the color palette to a green or green-gray because it would not be compatible with the existing color schemes in the area. He did not favor implementing concrete tile having a very flat profile because it would not complement the other structures MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 March 23, 2005 in the area. He understands that Commissioner Pruden's intent is to maintain some of the historical features of the Train Depot where concrete tile was the original roofing material. He stated whatever tree species Commissioner Pruden recommends would be fine. He acknowledged the traffic problems on Perkins Street at peak intervals, and stated the Citywide Traffic Study findings will adequately identify and address traffic problems on City streets and key intersections. The project would be an upgrade to the site, and he supported the project layout and design. He recognizes that a property owner has the right to sell property as he/she desires. The City, City Council, and/or Planning Commission has no control over private property sales and purchases other than ensuring a project complies with the development guidelines/standards of the Ukiah General Plan and various zoning designations. He does not favor the concept of big-box structures. However, a project cannot legally be denied if the "letter of the law" is being followed. He referred to the proposed modified conditions for the project, and inquired whether these should be addressed. Planning Director Stump replied "yes." He commented on the issue of the project being "rubber stamped" by staff as being a "done deal," and stated from staff's perspective, "nothing can be farther from the truth." No final decision has been made concerning this project. The City Council approved the Demolition Permit, as recommended by the Demolition Permit Review Committee, and publicly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the UMC. The applicant, pending approval of the project, has not purchased the subject property. No one in opposition to the project has consulted staff regarding his/her project questions/concerns. Staff encourages the public to ask questions or comment on all types of development projects. He stated the project is a Major Site Development Permit project. The UMC does not require a Major Use Permit for this type of development on a commercial corridor, so the use is not being considered. He acknowledged the public's concern regarding big box retail establishments and corresponding Iow-wage jobs as part of the associated use, and stated these issues are important, but not the topic of discussion at this hearing. The Planning Commission is required to review the project layout, architecture/design, landscaping features, parking/circulation, and other site development- related standards to ensure compliance with the goals/policies of the Ukiah General Plan and with the various Zoning District designations. He commented on the issue of traffic on Perkins Street, and stated the applicant is also concerned. The City Wide Traffic Study consultants are assessing City streets and key intersections. Staff is confident the study results/findings will help the City with addressing traffic and pedestrian safety issues that affect planning decisions/recommendations. He reiterated that the applicants are contributing financially to help mitigate traffic impacts. Chair Mulheren stated his approach during the discretionary review process is to listen to the public comments and evaluate the information/questions/concerns prior to acting on a particular project. Commissioner Whetzel commended staff for the preparation of an informative/comprehensive staff report. He stated the proposed development site was a former lumber mill and that the architectural design should reflect this historical aspect. He is concerned with the increased traffic impacts with the new development in the event the Railroad becomes operable, potentially creating more traffic problems on East Perkins Street. He acknowledged the fact that the Planning Commission cannot consider the project use. He also listens attentively to the public comments prior to considering and acting on a project. A project presented for discretionary review and approved may likely represent the best decision that could be made at that particular time. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 March 23, 2005 Chair Mulheren commented the project will have a storyboard to preserve the historical characteristics of the site. He stated it is important for the color scheme to blend with the other buildings and did not favor changing the color palate to a green or green-gray. He favored Commissioner Pruden's recommendation to reduce the tower windows. He commented the architectural features were never intended to reflect the historical aspects of the Railroad Depot. He further commented the proposed new development would be an improvement to the site. The City Council meetings are televised, properly noticed, and agendas are available to the public so citizens are appropriately informed about projects. Projects being considered by the Planning Commission are also properly noticed and agendas are available to the public. He encouraged persons concerned about a particular project to come to these meetings and/or consult with staff. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Whetzel, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for Major Site Development Permit 04-59 with Findings 1-4, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Jennings, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was carried by an ali AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Site Development Permit 04-59 with Findings 1-11 and Conditions of Approval 1-36, as amended, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. 9B. Major Site Development Permit No. 04-43, as submitted by Ruff & Associates, Inc. for Mark Mountanos, to allow the construction of an apartment complex with a total of 30 residential units on a 2.47-acre parcel located at 750 Talmage Road (APN 003-160-57); zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). Associate Planner Lohse addressed the staff report as follows: The proposed development includes the construction of three two-story apartment buildings with eight two-bedroom units each and the construction of a single one- story building with six one-bedroom units for a total of four separate apartment buildings (30 units). The construction also includes a paved private access roadway with a pedestrian sidewalk, cul-de-sac terminus, two large parking lots, and landscape planter areas. · The site contains no structures and there are several mature Walnut trees and a mature Persimmon tree on the southern half of the site and two mature Live Oak trees on the northern half of the site. · Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report specifically include a detailed design breakdown of the three larger buildings, referred to as "Building Type 1" and the fourth building, referred to as "Building Type 2." · According to staff's analysis, the project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan relative to the proposed MDR (Medium Density Residential) land use designation as prescribed in the General Plan Land Use Element. Also, the project complies with the House Element goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan for infill development and maximizing housing opportunities on available land, and with the Open Space and Conservation Element goals portion on the Ukiah General Plan pertinent to balancing creek access with flood control. · The project is consistent with the use and development standards of the R-2 Zoning District, including the requirements for parking and landscaping, as addressed on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 March 23, 2005 The northern portion of the site contains FEMA-designated floodway for the Doolin Creek corridor, where the applicants have limited the proposed landscaping to existing trees or new plantings of small trees, Iow-lying shrubs, and groundcover. Staff determined that the addition of the new landscaping will probably not adversely affect the integrity of the floodway. Staff recommends the Commission authorize the Planning Director to permit a reduction in the number of plants or landscape coverage area if the City Engineer determines that it will adversely affect the floodway system, since the entire property is located in the FEMA-defined 100-year floodplain/floodway for Doolin Creek relative to site drainage and creek dynamics. The project is consistent with the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan where the subject property is located in Airport Compatibility Zone C that allows for multiple- family residential uses. While noise from aircraft is not considered a significant adverse environmental impact or a hazard to persons using the site, staff is concerned with nuisance effects it will cause. Therefore, staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 38 that requires rental agreements include an advisement addressing the noise impact potential to be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a Permit of Occupancy. The existing property is vacant so approval of the project will change the land use patterns on the site and in the surrounding neighborhood. However, staff determined the project to be compatible with the neighborhood. The project will increase traffic in the area where the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the Talmage Road Subdivision in June 2003 was applied to this project. Staff determined that the traffic volume along the Talmage Frontage Road is expected to increase by 200 trip ends per day as a result of the project, which will add to the existing traffic congestion in the area. However, the increase is considered to be within the acceptable range and that the increase in traffic levels will not cause a decline in the existing level of service. An Initial Study was prepared to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts caused by the project where staff determined the proposed land use changes could create potentially adverse impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water resources, and geology and soils. Staff further determined that each of these effects could be mitigated to levels that are not significant by the adoption of the mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring report. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. Staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Anderson commented that Lorraine Street is located in the vicinity of the proposed project and is not a pedestrian/bicycle-oriented friendly street. He stated the street has few sidewalks. He expressed concern that people residing in the apartment complex would likely add to the problems on Lorraine Street by driving on this street. He stated the City, as well as developers, have the responsibility to ensure that the necessary infrastructure and safety standards are in place for the people living in the area. From this point of view, he is not supportive of the proposed development. As with the Walgreens project, he understands money/funding is not available to complete the infrastructure improvements for this project. He stated the quality of life is not the best in the project area due to noise/traffic impacts and safety issues. The project area also has no real open space, parks, or recreational facilities. He questioned why projects are continually approved before the necessary infrastructure is in place. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:48 p.m. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 March 23, 2005 Richard Ruff, Project Architect, referred to the Talmage Apartments Project Narrative that addresses/explains the project site plans, architectural design, and materials, and noted that the development is an infill project that will target a young, urban market and transform a largely unused parcel into needed housing. Chair Mulheren stated the proposed project is a good use of the lot. He addressed Commissioner Anderson's concern regarding the lack of sidewalks in the area, and stated the City has been instrumental in formulating a plan to provide a walkway parallel to the Railroad tracks, north and south. Commissioner Jennings inquired regarding the project materials, and inquired whether the galvanized aluminum siding may be too bright. Richard Ruff stated the siding has a dull finish. He advised the project conditions indicate that extensive landscaping and fast growing trees are required to shield the structure in the event the galvanized aluminum creates reflective problems. Commissioner Whetzel stated he is familiar with the walking problems in the area, and expressed concern regarding the potential for increased traffic on Lorraine Street and Betty Street. He noted the existing traffic problems at the Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard intersection where drivers are only permitted to drive left or right, and inquired whether staff has adequately addressed the issue of traffic flow. Richard Ruff stated a traffic analysis was conducted for the project area, and the results indicate the potential increased traffic would not significant impact traffic. Mr. Lohse stated the previously prepared traffic study used for the project took into consideration the development of 50 or more apartment units. The City Public Works Department determined that the majority of trips for the project would pass through the intersection at Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard rather than on Lorraine Street. There are a number of speed humps on Lorraine Street where the traffic speeding problems on this street and adjacent streets in the area has been discouraged as a result. The primary concern of the residents in the area is the potential for increased traffic congestion at the Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard intersection. The City Public Works Department has not required applicants to implement sidewalks for projects in the area because the sidewalks would be sporadically constructed. The project will provide for sufficient pedestrian orientation. Commissioner Anderson is supportive of the corners of the building and the outdoor porch area. He inquired how many units would be close to the freeway, and commented that being out on the apartment porches would not likely be an enjoyable experience for the tenants. Mr. Ruff stated the tenants would be looking at the off-ramp rather than the freeway. He estimated the dimension from the closest unit to the off-ramp as being approximately 40- feet, taking into consideration the public right-of-way and fences. He stated a sound-wall was proposed and considered, but staff recommended implementing a vegetative berm to help mitigate noise impacts generated from freeway traffic. Bill Randolph commented he does stream/fish habitat work in terms of reestablishing the vitality of the creeks/streams from a biological/environmental standpoint, and emphasized MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 March 23, 2005 the importance of providing for vegetative buffers and/or maintaining the existing vegetation for those developments located near streams/creeks. He requested clarification whether the end of the parking lot abuts the bank of Doolin Creek. Mr. Lohse stated although the parking lot would extend within four or five feet of the creek, it would not be developed on top of the creek bank. The parking lot would not affect the existing vegetation (black berry bushes), and the two existing mature trees that shade the creek will be retained. Bill Randolph stated it is important to retain native vegetation along creek banks. He inquired whether it would be possible to eliminate some parking spaces since the setback from the creek is only about four feet and replace the area with vegetation. Mr. Lohse stated the project site has provided for more parking stalls than required by the UMC. The intent is to allow for some flexibility in the event that it becomes clearly apparent that additional parking is necessary. Staff would be amenable to providing for additional landscaping should the extra parking spaces not be needed, but the matter depends upon FEMA's response. The concern for planting additional vegetation to shade the creek is the fact that the area is defined by FEMA as a floodway where no interference with the natural flow is allowed. Also, the Open Space and Conservation element of the Ukiah General Plan emphasizes the importance of creek preservation and retention of natural resources within the creeks. Staff will consult with the Public Works Department regarding the most effective approach to balance the planting of additional trees/vegetation and remain in compliance with FEMA regulations/standards. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Jennings commented the proposed project would be an improvement to the property. He acknowledged that some of the older sections of Lorraine Street and other streets in the area need improving. He favored approval of the project, and indicated it would be a good infill development. Commissioner Whetzel concurred with Commissioner Jennings comments. Mr. Lohse addressed Commissioner Pruden's project recommendations/comments where she stated, "The Mountanos apartment project is one of the most original designed apartment complexes the Planning Commission has seen in a long time," and "the radical departure from the standard box complexes will raise some eyebrows in the community." She is not sure how the design would be received in Ukiah, since it would be visible from the freeway. She requested that the proposed Crape Myrtle trees be replaced. ON A MOTION by Commissioner Whetzel, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for Major Site Development Permit 04-43 with Findings 1-5, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. '~ ON A MOTION by Commissioner Whetzel, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present to approve Major Site Development Permit 04-43 with Findings 1-11 and Conditions of Approval 1-40, as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 March 23, 2005 --II '~ Ms. Judy Pruden Ukiah History SpecialiSt ""..~. _ , Bldg. Preservation &. Research ., 304 South Hortense · Ukiah, CA 95482 ~~-. ' 707-462-4945 TO: Planning Department:.and Planning CommissiOn, City of Ukiah I'~'~ill be out of town March 23, 05 and cannot address my design concerns at the Planning Commission Meeting about. the Walgreen Drugstore project. I'm also chairman of the Demolition Review Committee and had extensive, discussion with the applicant about the historical nature of the area and what needed to be reflected in the new project. (see minutes, July 15, 05 and the'evaluation) I feel the current design does not quite'have all the design components which are necessary to give it the--~,,Ukiah look" for the railroad area. Therefore I'm submitting the following list of design enhance- ments which will make the project more compatible to the site. 1. Changing the color.palette to a g~:een, green-gray, brick~ . red and cream, the.colOrs are historically more accurate and the stucco finish should not look like adobe or'mission sytle. The main body should be in the green family and the red, grays, creams as accent. 2. The roofing material needs to be a concrete tile with a very flat profile, which waS'the'original roofing material on the train depot. The concrete tile cost the same as· · .~.':u'terra cotta barrel tile which should not be used. The color should be in the.grey,green group. 3~ The entrance tower roof needs to h~ve deeper eaves and possibly knee. brace brackets attached from eaves to wall. Knee brace brackets also need to be placed near the front entrance door. Knee brace brackets .are one of the most common .design features found in Ukiah and on railroad design structures. · 4. The proposed Raymond .Ash.trees have' been just listed as a t'ree unsuitable for streetscapes .and I would 'suggest a member of the maple family ~ I would like to see a reduction in scale of the tower windows because they,~,c~rent design fad and the addtion of a clock face into the tower logo. ~. This building should not have mission-style design but be more ref.leotive of the 1920's period Aflachment # ~'-~/ /&, o,5 1TEM NO: DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: D:ZSCUSS:ZON AND D:ZRECT:ZON REGARDTNG THE PLANNI'NG PERMTr PROCESS]:NG AND COST RECOVERY STUDY SUMMARY: During the recent City Council mid-year budget discussions, Planning Staff discussed options for generating additional revenue. One alternative was to evaluate the planning permit current fee schedule and the way the Department recovers its costs for providing service. Staff has subsequently prepared a Planning Permit Processing and Cost Recovery Study. This Agenda Ttem is intended to initiate a discussion of this study, and more specifically, the concepts of a 100% cost recovery for processing planning permits, a General Plan Update/Maintenance fee, and a fee for appeals. BACKGROUND: The City of Ukiah last revised its fees for planning and zoning activities in .June of 2002. Prior to that time, the fees had been modified in 1964, 1973, 1976, 1989, and 1996. The purpose of raising the fees in 2002 was to maintain an approximate 75% salary cost recovery for processing the planning and zoning permit applications. The City Council at that time felt comfortable providing a 25% subsidy to the development community to "assist" economic development. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACT]:ON: Discuss study and provide direction to Staff. ALTERNATZVE COUNCTL POLTCY OPT]:ON: Do not discuss the Study and provide direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Study and notice distributed to organizations, agencies, and interested persons Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Permit Processing and Cost Recovery Study (previously distributed) APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Qht Ma)~er Tn 2002, Staff indicated that the processing of applications, in general, had become more complex and time consuming. This was due to increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development and its associated issues, the demand for a higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains such as, traffic congestion, neighborhood compatibility, and drainage. Since that time, it has become even more time consuming. Most projects are infill developments, which raise legitimate neighborhood concerns. These concerns and issues take time to resolve and in some cases cause development projects to be revised. This is evidenced by an increase in controversy for what were previously "routine" projects. One Minor Use Permit acted on by the Zoning Administrator and appealed to the City Council cost the City approximately $3,000.00 to process. The fee collected for that permit was $450.00. The ZOO% Cost Recovery Alternative: Many jurisdictions in California have adopted a 100% cost recovery fee schedule for processing planning permits. The justification for a full recovery program is that the service is being provided to a private party rather than benefiting the community as a whole. The "local" jurisdictions that have adopted this approach include Fort Bragg, Santa Rosa, and Petaluma. The Study estimates that under a 100% cost recovery approach, the "average" major Use Permit or Site Development Permit would cost an applicant approximately $2,540 as compared with the current fee of $900 to $1200. The costs factored into the processing of the permits are Staff salary and benefits, Planning Commission salaries, the hard costs (postage, telephone, noticing), building rental, utilities and maintenance, insurance, Staff conference and training, dues, equipment, and supplies. Staff Recommendation: Discuss the 100% cost recovery approach and consider directing Staff to prepare a Resolution establishing a 100% cost recovery planning permit fee schedule. Minor Permits: Other jurisdictions have concluded that a flat fee is appropriate for the processing of minor permits, because they are generally predictable in terms of the amount of Staff time needed to process from start to finish. While some minor permits spark controversy, and take an unusual amount of time to process, most minor Variance, Use and Site Development Permits in Ukiah are generally predictable in terms of the amount of time it takes to process them. Based on the general predictability of this process, a flat fee could be retained rather than a full 100% cost recovery. Staff Recommendation: 1) Determine that the current "fiat rate" fee approach for minor planning permits is still appropriate; or 2) Determine that the 100% cost recovery approach should apply to minor planning permits. General Plan Update/Maintenance Fee: Many communities across California have established a "surcharge" or "supplemental" on all Building Permits to help fund the 10 or 15 year revision to their local General Plans. Some communities charge a fiat rate per dwelling unit or square foot of commercial space, but most charge 5% to 15% of the Building Permit fee. The rationale for the fee is that the issuance of Building Permits is dependent upon the community having a legally defensible General Plan. ]f a community has an inadequate, internally inconsistent, and/or outdated General Plan, it could be legally challenged. Tf such a challenge is successful, a court could direct a community to withhold the issuance of permits until their General Plan is updated. An additional rationalization for the creation of the fee is that it is a part of an overall service whereby the jurisdiction must update and adopt a current General Plan, and that new development must pay its fair share of covering the cost of this overall service along with funding from the general fund. Staff believes that the City should begin saving for the future updating of the General Plan, and that development projects have an obligation to participate in the funding. Staff Recommendation: Direct Staff to amend the current fee schedule to include a General Plan Update/IVlaintenance Fee. Appeal Fee: Most jurisdictions charge a fee for filing an appeal to decisions made by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. Some jurisdictions have adopted a 100% cost recovery for appeals, while others have established fiat rates. Fort Bragg charges $750 for an appeal, Mendocino County charges $750, Cloverdale $75, and Santa Rosa $350. Tn the past, the Ukiah City Council has chosen not to establish an appeal fee, because it did not want to "charge" the neighboring property owner or concerned citizen for securing an audience with the City Council to discuss a development project affecting them. However, not all appeals are filed by neighboring property owners or concerned citizens. Developers who are dissatisfied with the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission decision have the right to appeal. A recent example is the Safeway gas station project that was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed by Safeway to the City Council. That appeal was processed at no cost to the applicant. Most jurisdictions charge an appeal fee, yet some have chosen not to. Another alternative established by the City of Petaluma is to charge a hard cost flat rate for the public and a 100% cost recovery fee for applicants. Staff Recommendation: 1) Consider establishing an appeal fee and provide direction to Staff. How Planning Permit Processing Can Be Tmproved: As part of this Study, Community Planning Division Staff evaluated its planning permit processing procedures to determine if steps could be made to improve efficiency. Currently, the process involves routing the application to reviewing departments and agencies, conducting a Project Review Committee meeting, determining completeness of the application, conducting environmental review, and acting on the application after the conduct of a public hearing. The most time consuming task is determining completeness of the application. This step is achieved when Staff is able to conclude that it fully understands the proposal. Tf Staff cannot fully understand the proposal, the application is deemed incomplete, and a letter is sent to the applicant requesting additional information. Staff has identified the following ways to make this step more efficient: 1. ]:mprove the brochure that describes the planning permit process. 2. Tmprove the actual planning permit application form. 3. Develop an "Application Completeness" checklist form to accompany the planning permit application. 4. Develop a brochure that describes"common pitfalls" with application processing, and what the applicant can do to avoid them. 5. Staff must improve early communication with applicants about missing information, issues, and problems. 6. Improve the pre-application review process to provide better "early" guidance to prospective applicants. 7. Post additional material on the City of Ukiah website, such as the General Plan, Zoning Map, Airport Master Plan, Commercial Development Design Guidelines, etc. 8. Improve the Department of Planning and Community Development portion of the website to include information brochures, helpful hints, questions and answers, important links, etc. Staff is prepared to implement the above listed improvements. CONCLU$]:ON: The planning permit fees are less than what similar nearby jurisdictions charge for the same service. They are significantly less than Mendocino County, and the City of Fort Bragg, which has adopted a 100% cost recovery fee structure for large and/or complicated projects. The Department of Planning and Community Development has not generated the revenue it projected when the planning permit fees were last revised in 2002. Since that time, costs for such things as insurance and retirement have unexpectedly increased, and depending on the type and number of permits, revenue can be unpredictable. Seeking 100% cost recovery for permit processing is becoming common throughout California, and with the current developer interest in the City of Ukiah, particularly those from outside the area, it is anticipated that permit processing will stay static with the redevelopment of land and the buildout of vacant land. When development interests from outside the area inquire about the fees associated with permit processing, they generally find it surprising that our fees for Major Permits are so Iow, and that the City does not have a comprehensive development impact fee program. For large projects, developers generally include a large amount for permits and impacts fees into their project budgets. If the City were to adopt a 100% cost recovery fee schedule, it would still be less than what most jurisdictions charge, and it would not adversely impact the budgets of larger projects. While some smaller projects may be affected more by a 100% cost recovery fee schedule, many of them could escape the fees if the City decides to adopt a fiat rate for "Minor" permits. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that adopting a 100% cost recovery fee schedule for processing large Planning Permits will adversely impact or undermine efforts to stimulate economic development. Staff is able to conclude that establishing a "surcharge" on Building Permits for the costly updating and maintaining of the General Plan and other long-range planning documents is forward thinking and would avoid the need for a large general fund lump sum in the future. Saving the funds over the next ten years makes more sense than coming up with it in one or two budget years. AB 2936 allows local governments to establish the surcharge on Building Permits because of the legal relationship between the General Plan and building activities. RECOI41~IENDED Ac'ri:ON: Discuss study and provide direction to Staff. Planning Permit Processing Cost Recovery Study CITY OF UKIAH Prepared by the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 The Current Fee Schedule ................................................................................................... The Community Planning Division Budget .......................................................................... 2 The 100% Cost Recovery Alternative What Other Communities are Doing .................................................................................... 3 City of Ukiah 100% Cost Recovery Planning Permits ................................................................................................................... 4 Minor Permits ....................................................................................................................... 7 Other Types of Fees ............................................................................................................. 7 General Plan Update and Maintenance Fee ........................................................................ 8 Appeal Fee .......................................................................................................................... 11 How Planning Permit Processing Be Improved ................................................................. 13 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 14 Suggestions ........................................................................................................................ 15 TABLES Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1: Revenue from Planning Permits and Costs to Process Them ............................... 2 2: Average Staff Time and Cost to Process a Major Planning Permit ....................... 5 3: Minor and Major Permits ....................................................................................... 6 4: A 100% Cost Recovery Scenario ........................................................................... 6 5: Examples of General Plan Update/Maintenance Fees ........................................... 9 6: Revenue with General Plan Fee ........................................................................... 10 7: Typical building Permit Cost with General Plan Fee ............................................ 10 8: Appeal fees - Various Jurisdictions ..................................................................... 12 9: Appeal Fee Options .............................................................................................. 13 APPENDICIES Appendix A: Current (2002) Planning Permit Fee Schedule Appendix B: California Government Code Section 66014 .[NTRODUCT.[ON The current municipal budget climate suggests difficult times ahead for local government. Forces beyond the control of the City have caused severe impacts on the City's general fund, and projections reveal continued problems unless the community, staff, and the decision makers make changes. Accordingly, staff has evaluated the expenditures and revenue of the Community Planning budget to determine what reasonable changes can be made to increase the contribution to the general fund. Specifically, an examination of the current fees charged to process permits has been performed, and a 100% cost recovery concept has been evaluated. At the same time, a look at the way service is provided has been performed with the intent of finding ways to make improvements that would not necessarily involve an increase in expenditures. A number of customer service efficiency improvements are proposed. This Study evaluates the current fee schedule, the Community Planning Division budget, the revenue generated from permits, a 100% cost recovery concept, a General Plan update/maintenance fee, and a permit appeal fee. BACKGROUI~tO The City of Ukiah last revised its fees for planning and zoning activities in 3une of 2002. Prior to that time, the fees had been modified in 1964, 1973, 1976, 1989, and 1996. The purpose of raising the fees in 2002 was to maintain an approximate 75% salary cost recovery for processing the planning and zoning permit applications. The City Council at that time felt comfortable providing a 25% subsidy to the development community to "assist" economic development. In 2002, Staff indicated that the processing of applications, in general, had become more complex and time consuming. This was due to increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development and its associated issues, the demand for a higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains such as, traffic congestion, neighborhood compatibility, and drainage. Since that time, it has become even more time consuming. This is evidenced by an increase in controversy for what were previously routine projects. One Minor Use Permit acted on by the Zoning Administrator and appealed to the City Council cost the City approximately $3,000.00 to process. The fee collected for that permit was $450.00. TIlE CURRENT FEE $CHED UI. E As indicated above, the current fee schedule was adopted in 2002. The study that supported an increase in fees at that time explored two primary factors. First, the fees in effect at the time (adopted in 1998) were compared to the fees charged for the same type of permit by other nearby jurisdictions. Second, an average timeframe for processing a typical development permit application was established, and the staff salary/benefits implications were calculated. Additionally, consideration was given to establishing new fees based upon the overall services provided to the public. The General Fund supported many services that were primarily provided solely to the development community, and the City Council was asked to discuss whether or not the development community should be charged for these services. The City Council adopted the new fee schedule which raised many fees, kept fees Iow for affordable housing projects, established Iow fees for very minor permits, and established new fees for services previously provided at no cost. As a result, the annual revenue generated from the new fees doubled. However, the revenue was still small in terms of the Community Planning Division actual expenditures for processing planning permits (see Table i below). TI-IE COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION BUDGET The Community Planning Division budget has fluctuated over the past several years due to staffing levels, the need for consultant assistance on projects, and most recently increases in workers compensation and the PERS retirement program. Revenue from planning permits has generally increased over the past several years, but also fluctuates because of the type and number of planning permits applied for. Basically, if the Department receives a large number of large projects, the revenue increases. Over the past several years the Department processes an average of approximately 60 planning permits per year. During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, 31 Minor permits and 22 Major permits were processed. So far during the 2004-2005 fiscal year (9 months), 21 Minor and 26 Major permits have been submitted for processing. TABLE 1 Revenue From Planning Permits and Costs to Process Them 3uly 2000- 3une 2004 FISCAL YEAR REVENUE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE AS A (3uly-3une) FROM PLANNING COMMUNTIY PERCENT OF THE PERMITS PLANNING SALARY SALARY AND BENEFITS AND BENEFITS USED FOR PROCESSING PERMITS* 1997-1998 $7,007 $148,871 4.7% 1998-1999 $12,600 $156,035 8.0% 1999-2000 $11,935 $158,898 7.5% 2000-2001 $19,850 $116,760 17% (see Note 4 below) 2001-2002 $13,400 $157,695 8.4% 2002-2003 $27,775 $193,489 ~4.3% 2003-2004 $25,~0 $~95,98! ~2.8% I NOTES: It is important to note that the Community Planning Division Staff has other responsibilities besides processing planning and zoning permits, and spend time on tasks that do not include the collection of fees. Accordingly, it is estimated that the Department spends approximately 75% of its time on processing development permit applications. The tasks that do not involve fee collection include, but are not limited to long-range planning activities, providing public information, participating on Public Works and Public Utility capital improvement projects, performing on various committees, and participating in code compliance cases. This is why only 75% of the salary and benefits are used in Table I above. The Planning Permit fees were increased in June of 2002, which is why the revenue increased dudng the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Compare 2000-200! when the same number of permits were issued, yet 5,450 more was collected in 2002-2003. The 2002-2003 fee increase included "new" fees for such things as sign permits and staff research. The 2000-2001 Community Planning Division Salary and benefits were Iow because the City attempted, but was unsuccessful in filling a vacant planner position. The position was finally filled and the salary and benefits are reflected in the 2001-2002 budget. THE.Z00% COST RECOVER YAL TERNA TIVE- WI.IA TOTHER COHHUNITIESARE DOING Many jurisdictions in California have adopted a 100% cost recovery fee schedule for processing planning permits. The justification for a full recovery program is that the service is being provided to a private party rather than benefiting the community as a whole. However, in some cases this justification was countered by the argument that residential and commercial development do provide benefit to the community as a whole in terms of providing housing stock, property and sales taxes, jobs, and overall economic development. Many communities in California continue to partially subsidize development by not establishing a full cost recovery fee schedule. Fort Bragg.' In 2004, the City of Fort Bragg adopted a 100% Cost recovery approach for the "non- measurable" larger planning permit projects and services such as rezonings, General Plan amendments, annexations, planned development permits, and large subdivisions. For smaller administrative review type projects that are generable "measurable" in terms of time, Fort Bragg charges a fiat fee. These permits do not require a public hearing and include Minor Use Permits, Minor Variances, Minor Design Reviews, etc. The fiat fee for these types of permits is $300.00. For the 100% cost recovery of large projects, applicants pay an initial minimum deposit of $1500.00 and a "deposit account" is established. All costs associated with processing the permit (staff time, postage, legal notices, copies, etc.) are charged against the account. In the event that the initial $1500.00 deposit is used up, the applicant is required to submit an additional deposit to cover the remaining cost to process the application. Santa Rosa: The City of Santa Rosa adopted a full cost recovery development review fee schedule in late 2004. They established a formula based on the number of various types of permits, the anticipated hours used by various staff persons to process the applications, and the hourly cost of each involved staff person. As a result, they established a fiat fee for each type of permit. In some cases, fees increased substantially, while in other cases there was only a moderate increase. For example, the fee for a major Site Development Permit (Design Review) increased from $2,216.00 to $6,300, while the fee for a Home Occupation Permit only increased from $65.00 to $82.00. Novato: In 2000, the City of Novato adopted a "Full Cost Recovery Program" for application processing and inspection services. Project applicants must enter into an agreement to "pay the City all reimbursable costs, both direct and indirect, including State-mandated costs, associated review and processing of the accompanying application for land use and/or encroachment or grading permit for land use approval(s) and inspections(s) with respect to the subject property." One or more deposits are made to ensure full cost recovery. If the application/owner fails to pay the required deposits during review of the application, all processing and inspections are halted until payment is made. Applicants are required to pay a $1,000.00 deposit for Major Use Permits and an additional deposit of $600.00 for an Initial Environmental Study. The final total fee for the Major Use Permit may exceed the total deposit fee of $1,600.00 depending upon the Staff time and materials used to process from start to finish. Similar to other jurisdictions with full cost recovery programs, fiat fees are charged for minor permits such as sign permits, minor design review, certificates of compliance, etc. Petaluma: The City of Petaluma charges a fiat fee for minor permits and "Deposits + StaffTime and Materials" for major permits. "Deposit + Staff Time and Materials" means that applicants will be billed for the full cost of processing the application based on Staff time and materials used over and above the amount of the deposit. For a Major Use Permit, applicants are required to pay a deposit of $3,750.00 and an additional deposit of $2,500.00 for an Initial Environmental Study. The final total fee for the Major Use Permit may exceed the total deposit fee of $6,250.00 depending upon the Staff time and materials used to process from start to finish. CITY OF UKIAH ,~ 00% COST RECOVER Y- PLANNING PERMITS The cost per permit under a 100% cost recovery approach depends upon how much time is used to process and who is involved in the processing. It is conceivable that one Major Use Permit could continue to be processed for the current $900.00 fee, and another could end up costing over $3,000.00. The cost would depend upon the amount of detailed and pertinent information submitted with the application, the complexity of project issues (drainage, traffic, design, environmental impacts, etc.) and how much public controversy a given project generates. Over the past several years, the Community Planning Division has processed an average of approximately 60 planning permits per fiscal year. As indicated in Table 1, the revenue stayed fairly consistent until the fees were raised in 2002. The revenue, when compared with the department expenditures has increased as a percentage, but remains Iow. The 2002 projected annual revenue of approximately $30,000 - $40,000 has not been achieved. This is due in part to the types of applications received for processing. The more "Major" permits that are processed, the higher the revenue. Over the past two years since the fees we raised, we have not received the number of "Major" permits that we projected in 2002. To achieve a full 100% cost recovery for the processing of planning permits, a percentage of the following costs must be calculated and added to the cost of processing. · Salary and benefits of those responsible for processing the permit · Planning Commission salaries · Noticing, copying, telephone, postage, etc. · Building and land rental, maintenance, and utility use · Allocated insurance · Conference and training · Dues and subscriptions · Equipment repair and maintenance · General supplies TABLE 2 Staff Time/Cost Scenario Average Staff Time and Staff Cost to Process a Major Planning Permit STAFF AVERAGE TZME HOURLY SALARY AND COST SPENT BENEF:ZTS PLANNING DIRECTOR 10 Hours $58.40 $584 ASSOC]~ATE 35 Hours $40.81 $1438.25 PLANNER DEVELOPMENT PERMI-I" 3 Hours $28.01 $84.03 COORDINATOR TOTALS 48 Hours $2096.:38 TABLE 3 Definitions of Major and Minor Permits MA.1OR PERMITS Use Permits, Variances and Site Development Permits MINOR PERMITS Use Permits, Variances and Site Development Permits Additions of 1000 square feet or more in the C-1, C~2, and M zoning districts, and 640 square feet in the R-2, R-3, and C-N zoning districts; new construction on vacant parcels; and changes in use that would require additional parking, and would generate substantial amounts of additional traffic, noise, or other impacts. Major Variances are those seeking relief of more than 50% of the required standard. Small additions/expansions of more than 150 square feet, but less than 1000 square feet; minor amendments to previously approved permits; and changes in use of existing structures that do not require additional parking, and will not generate substantial amounts of additional traffic, noise, or other impacts. Minor Variances are those seeking relief of less than 50% of the required standard. Table 4 below provides a breakdown of a 100% cost recovery scenario for processing a IVlajor Planning Permit: TABLE 4 A 100% Cost Recovery Scenario "Average" Major Permit Processing Salary& PC Hard Building Insurance Conf & Dues Equip Supplies Total Benefits Salaries Costs Rental, Training Cost to Utilities and Process Maintenance Permit $2096.38 $125' $79* $113' $37 $50 $15 $9 $16 $2540.38 PC salaries: The five PC members make $50 per meeting - $250 total for each meeting. On the average, 2 development permits are agendized per meeting; therefore the applicant must pay half ($125) of the PC costs for the meeting their permit is acted on. Hard C0.sts: To figure this cost, it was calculated that the Department as a whole spends approximately 75% of its time working on development permit applications. 75% of the hard costs were determined, and then divided by 60 (average number of planning permits per year) to arrive at the required contribution per permit. Building Rental, Utilities and Maintenance: $9031 multiplied by .75, divided by 60 = $113. It is acknowledged that some major permits may take more time to process depending upon the comprehensiveness of the submittal, the scope and complexity of then project, as well as the degree of community interest. Others may take less time. :If a 100% cost recovery approach is pursued, a "deposit" payment schedule, similar to how other communities collect the fees can be utilized. In this way, the applicant only pays for the Staff time it takes to process the application. An alternative that would not involve a detailed time-tracking system is to charge the "scenario" fee listed in Table 4, acknowledging that this represents the average cost for processing, and that in the end; the "slow" permits will balance with the "fast" permits. The advantage to the latter approach is that the Staff would not have to perform and maintain a detailed time-consuming time tracking exercise for its entire permit processing activities. The disadvantage is that a true 100% cost review may not be achieved. MINOR PERMITS Other jurisdictions have concluded that a fiat fee is appropriate for the processing of minor permits, because they are generally predictable in terms of the amount of Staff time needed to process from start to finish. While some minor permits spark controversy, and take an unusual amount of time to process, most Minor Variance, Use and Site Development Permits in Ukiah are generally predictable in terms of the amount of time it takes to process them. As with all projects, the front line Staff work with prospective applicants to enlighten them on standards/requirements, design, findings, alternatives, and possible conditions of approval. As a result of this routine dialog, the majority of possible projects never make it to formal submittal. Those that do have generally been honed to a point where they meet the required standards are compatible with their surrounding neighborhoods, and the applicants are comfortable with the possible standard conditions of approval. Based on the general predictability of this process, a flat fee could be retained rather than a full 100% cost recovery. OTHER TYPES OF FEES Many jurisdictions have adopted "surcharge" or "supplemental" fees on planning and/or building permits. One of these "surcharge" fees is a General Plan update and maintenance fee intended to generate revenue for the eventual updating of a local general Plan. ]:n addition, many jurisdictions charge for services that the City of Ukiah has traditionally provided at no cost to the development community and general public. Most notable of these is a fee for appealing a Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The City of Fort Bragg charges $750.00; Novato charges $100.00; Santa Rosa charges $350.00; and Petaluma charges the applicant a deposit fee of $170.00 and then full cost recovery. If a member of the public files the appeal, they are charged $170.00, and the applicant must pay any additional fee to ensure full cost recovery. 1. General Plan Update/Maintenance Fee: Many communities across California have established a "surcharge" or "supplemental" on all Building Permits to help fund the 10 or 15 year revision to their local General Plans. Some communities charge a fiat rate per dwelling unit or square foot of commercial space, but most charge 5% to 15% of the Building Permit fee. The rationale for the fee is that the issuance of Building Permits is dependent upon the community having a legally defensible General Plan. If a community has an inadequate, internally inconsistent, and/or outdated General Plan, it could be legally challenged. If such a challenge is successful, a court could direct a community to withhold the issuance of permits until their General Plan is updated. An additional rationalization for the creation of the fee is that it is a part of an overall service whereby the jurisdiction must update and adopt a current General Plan, and that new development must pay its fair share of covering the cost of this overall service along with funding from the general fund. Some jurisdictions, the Town of Paradise for example, levies the fee on all planning entitlements as well because they must be legally processed based upon adoption of a "General Plan consistency finding." Fort Bragg.' The City of Fort Bragg charges an additional 1.5% surcharge on all Building Permits for long-range planning activities such as maintaining the City General Plan. This type of fee was authorized at the State level in .lanuary Of 2003 by AB 2936, and is now codified in Section 66014 of the California Government Code (Appendix B). For the City of Fort Bragg, the fee generates approximately $62,000 per year. Novato: The City of Novato charges a 10% surcharge on all Building Permits for long-range planning activities such as maintaining the City General Plan. This amounts to a fee of $1,000.00 on a $10,000.00 Building Permit. It is unknown how much revenue is generated by this surcharge, but it is assumed to be substantial. San Rafael: San Rafael charges a 15% surcharge that generates $100,000 annually. If the City of Ukiah had a 15% surcharge fee on Building Permits, Les Schwab Tires would have contributed $7,330. A typical 3000 square foot home project would contribute about $660, and a 200 square foot kitchen addition would generate $68. Many communities exempt certain types of development from the fee. The Town of Paradise does not collect it on building expansion projects because the building is already there and accounted for in the General Plan. Other communities do not collect it on affordable housing projects to provide an incentive, and because the affordable housing project is fulfilling crucial policies of the General Plan Housing Element. TABLE 5 Examples of What Some Jurisdictions Charge for the Update and Maintenance of Their General Plans ~UP. ZSDICT~ON Riverside San Rafael Paradise Morgan Hill Sacramento Pleasanton Oakland Fairfield Truckee Tiburon FEE 10% of Building Permit Fee ' 15% of Building Permit Fee 10% of Building Permit and Planning Permit Fee 5% of Building Permit Fee 4% of Building Permit Fee $250 per Building Permit 10 cents for every $100 Building Permit valuation $73 per SFD / $45 per MFD / $.032 per square foot for commercial development $3.10 per Building Permit 10% of Building Permit Fee TABLE 6 Ukiah Revenue with a GP Surcharge Fee YEAR 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 TOTAL GENERAL PLAN REVZSTON FEES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED 2000-2004 TOTAL BUTLD~'NG PERMTT FEES COLLECTED $272,223 $187,849 $161,545 $223,578 10O/oGP SURCHARGE $27,222 $18,785 $16,155 $22,358 15% GP SURCHARGE $40,883 $28,177 $24,232 $33,537 $84,520 $126,829 The average annual collection based on a 10% fee would have been $21,130. If the fee were 15%, the averaqe annual collection would have been $31,707. TABLE 7 Typical Building Permit Costs with a GP Surcharge Fee TYPE OF PRO3ECT 17,000 square foot retail commercial building (Les Schwab Tire Store) 3000 square foot single family residence BUTLDTNG PERM1'T FEES COLLECTED $48,878 10% GENERAL PLAN FEE $4,887 $4,400 $440 15% GENERAL PLAN FEE $7,332 $660 10 200 square foot kitchen addition 64-unit apartment complex Restaurant (Applebee's) $450 $58,085 $24,899 $45 $5,808 $2,489 $67.50 $8,713 $3,735 Revisinq the General Plan: The Ukiah General Plan will be ten years old in December 2005. The Housing Element was revised in 2004 at a cost of approximately $40,000, and is required to be revised again in 2009. The Circulation/Transportation Element update has been funded and will be revised during the 2005/2006 fiscal year as part of the Public Works Citywide Traffic Study project. It is anticipated that some of the work to revise the other General Plan Elements will be accomplished by in-house staff, although the technical elements such as noise, safety, energy, and historic/archaeological will be accomplished with the assistance of professional consultants. In addition, we will need a professional consultant to prepare the required Environmental Impact Report, and prepare maps and other graphic materials. There would also be additional costs for copying, binding, etc. Anticipated Cost to Revise the General Plan: It is anticipated that the cost to revise the General Plan, including the preparation of an EIR in the year 2015 would be approximately $250,000 (the 1995 General Plan update program cost approximately $400,000). This assumes only minor revisions to the noise, safety, and historic/archaeological elements. It also assumes that portions of the Plan would be updated by in-house Staff at a cost less than what consultants would charge. If a 10% surcharge is adopted in the year 2005, it is estimated that $200,000 could be generated by 2015. A 15% surcharge would generate approximately $300,000. 2. Appeal Fee: Most jurisdictions charge a fee for filing an appeal to decisions made by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. Some jurisdictions have adopted a 100% cost recovery for appeals, while others have established flat rates. The City of Elk Grove charges $2,000, while the City of Lemon Grove charges $25. The following is a list of what nearby jurisdictions charge for appeals: 11 TABLE 8 Appeal fees 3URISDICTION Ukiah Fort Bragg Mendocino County Novato San Rafael Cloverdale Petaluma Santa Rosa Davis APPEAL FEE $0 $750 $750 $100 $1,400 $75 $170 deposit for applicant / $170 total for public $350 $2O0 While not many decisions of the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission are appealed to the City Council, the cost to process one can be considerable. For example, the 2004 appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant relief to the height limit for a single family residence cost the City approximately $1,500 to $2,000 in Staff time, public noticing, etc., and no fee was required. One option would be to establish a fiat fee for all appeals. Another option is to only charge for the cost of public noticing and other"hard" costs. This would result in a fee of approximately $100.00. Another option is to take an approach like the City of Petaluma - charge a hard cost fiat rate for the public and a 100% cost recovery fee for applicants. 12 TABLE 9 Appeal Fee Options Option Option 1: A Flat Rate Fee Option 2: A Hard Cost Only Fee Option 3: A Public and Applicant Fee Approach Option 4: A 100% Cost Recovery Fee Option 5: No Fee Fee $500 - A flat rate fee that would reflect the "average" cost of processing an appeal* $100 - The hard cost only (public notices, etc.) $100 - 100% cost recovery. Two separate fees: $100 for the public to appeal, and 100% cost recovery for the applicant to appeal. 100% cost recovery for anyone to appeal. $0 ~ The average cost of p~ocessing includes salary and benefits for the time the planner spends processing the appeal, the time the Director spends on the appeal, the time the City Council spends on the appeal, and the hard costs. HOW PLANNING PERMIT PROCESSING C.4N BE IMPROVED As part of this Study, Community Planning Division Staff evaluated its planning permit processing procedures to determine if steps could be made to improve efficiency. Currently, the process involves routing the application to reviewing departments and agencies, conducting a Project Review Committee meeting, determining completeness of the application, conducting environmental review, and acting on the application after the conduct of a public hearing. The most time consuming task is determining completeness of the application. This step is achieved when Staff is able to conclude that it fully understands the proposal. ]~f Staff cannot fully understand the proposal, the application is deemed incomplete, and a letter is sent to the applicant requesting additional information. Staff has identified the following ways to make this step more efficient: 1. ]~mprove the brochure that describes the planning permit process 2. ]~mprove the actual planning permit application form 3. Develop an "Application Completeness" checklist form to accompany the planning permit application. 13 . . , . . Develop a brochure that describes "common pitfalls" with application processing, and what the applicant can do to avoid them. Staff must improve early communication with applicants about missing information, issues, and problems. Improve the pre-application review process to provide better "early" guidance to prospective applicants. Post additional material on the City of Ukiah website, such as the General Plan, Zoning Map, Airport Master Plan, Commercial Development Design Guidelines, etc. Improve the Department of Planning and Community Development portion of the website to include information brochures, helpful hints, questions and answers, important links, etc. CONCLUSIONS The planning permit fees are less than what similar nearby jurisdictions charge for the same service. They are significantly less than Mendocino County, and the City of Fort Bragg, which has adopted a 100% cost recovery fee structure for large and/or complicated projects. The Department of Planning and Community Development has not generated the revenue it projected when the planning permit fees were last revised in 2002. Since that time, costs for such things as insurance and retirement have unexpectedly increased, and depending on the type and number of permits, revenue can be unpredictable. Seeking 100% cost recovery for permit processing is becoming common throughout California, and with the current developer interest in the City of Ukiah, particularly those from outside the area, it is anticipated that permit processing will stay static with the redevelopment of land and the buildout of vacant land. When development interests from outside the area inquire about the fees associated with permit processing, they generally find it surprising that our fees for Major Permits are so Iow, and that the City does not have a comprehensive development impact fee program. For large projects, developers generally include a large amount for permits and impacts fees into their project budgets. If the City were to adopt a 100% cost recovery fee schedule, it would still be less than what most jurisdictions charge, and it would not adversely impact the budgets of larger projects. While some smaller projects may be affected more by a 100% cost recovery fee schedule, many of them could escape the fees if the City decides to adopt a flat rate for "lVlinor" permits. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that adopting a 100% cost recovery fee schedule for processing large Planning Permits will adversely impact or undermine efforts to stimulate economic development. Staff is able to conclude that establishing a "surcharge" on Building Permits for the costly updating and maintaining of the General Plan and other long-range planning documents is forward thinking 14 and would avoid the need for a large general fund lump sum in the future. Saving the funds over the next ten years makes more sense than coming up with it in one or two budget years. AB 2936 allows local governments to establish the surcharge on Building Permits because of the legal relationship between the General Plan and building activities. Staff is also able to conclude that establishing a fair and reasonable appeal fee makes sense given the costs involved in processing appeals to the City Council. Staff is intrigued by the City of Petaluma approach of charging the public a flat rate, and the developer a 100% cost recovery rate. This approach addresses the past City Council concern about "pricing" a neighbor or adjacent property owner out of the appeal process. :It also addresses the concern about cost when a developer appeals, because these types of appeals typically involve more time of the City Manager, City Attorney and Director of Planning and Community Development. Consider establishing a 100% cost recovery for Major Planning Permits and a fiat rate for IVlinor Planning Permits. m Consider establishing a 10% or 15% Genera/P/an Update/Pla/ntenance Surcharge Fee on Building Permits. 1, Consider establishing a $100 fee for appeals by the public, and a 100% full cost recovery appeal fee for applicants. 4. Implement measures for improving customer service efficiency Continue to keep fees Iow for affordable housing projects (projects proposing 100% of the housing units to be "locked-in" affordable to citizens earning less than 80% of the area median income, "sweat-equity" residential projects, residential second units, and projects involving housing for identified groups in need, such as seniors, homeless persons, and the mentally ill). 15 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURRENT PERMIT AND PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED 2002 PERMIT APPLICATION OR SERVICE Site Development Permit Major Site Development Permit Minor Use Permit Major REQUIRED FEE Level 1:$900 Level 2:$1200 Affordable Housing Project: $450 Level 1 Major Site Development Permits are the current major permits such as construction on vacant land, large additions/expansion to existing buildings, and significant expansions of use that require new parking spaces, or that would result in substantial amounts of new traffic, noise, or other nuisances. Level 2 Major Site Development Permits are defined as large commercial and industrial projects exceeding 20,000 square feet to be developed on vacant land, and non-affordable high density residential housing projects exceeding 20 units. Level 1:$150 Level 2:$450 Level 1 Minor Site Development Permits are very minor projects such as parking lot expansions, minor exterior modifications to existing commercial/industrial buildings, etc. Level 2 Minor Site Development Permits are minor additions per the provisions contained in Article 20, Chapter 2 of the U.M.C. Level 1:$900 Level 2:$1200 Affordable Housing Project: $450 Level 1 Major Use Permits are the current major permits such as construction on vacant land, large additions/expansion to existing buildings, and significant expansions of use that require new parking spaces, or that would result in substantial amounts of new traffic, noise, or other nuisances. Level 2 Major Use and Site Development Permits are defined as large commercial and industrial projects exceeding 20,000 square feet to be developed on vacant land, and non-affordable high density residential housing projects exceeding 20 units. 16 Use Permit Minor Use Permit/SDP Amendment Variance Major Variance Minor Subdivision Major Subdivision Minor Subdivision Exception Boundary Line Adjustment Appeal Agenda/Minutes General Plan Amendment Level 1:$150 Level 2:$450 Level 1 Minor Use Permits are temporary outdoor sales/display projects, special events, etc. Level 2 Minor Use Permits are minor expansions or changes in use per the provisions contained in Article 20, Chapter 2 of the U.M.C. $50 (Minor Level 1) $150 (Minor Level 2) $300 (Major Level 1) $433 (Major Level 2) $450 $225 Minor Variances are those seeking less than 50% relief from zoning requirements per Article 20, Chapter 2 of the U.M.C. They are also Variances associated with affordable housing projects. $1350 Affordable Housing Project: $450 $900 Affordable Housing Project: $225 Leve11:$450 Level2:$900 Level 1 Subdivision Exception Review involves 2 or less requested exceptions Level 2 Subdivision Exception Review involves more than 2 exception requests $450 Affordable Housing Project: $225 $0 $200/Year $9OO 17 Annexation General Plan Amendment Rezoning Rezoning Planned Development CEQA Document Filing Pre-Application Conference/Review (Planning Staff) Project Review Committee Pre-Application Review Sign Permit Environmental Review Initial Study Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Monitoring $1800 $9OO $1800 Affordable Housing Pr~ect:$450 $25 Level 1:$0 Level 2:$100 Level 1 Pre-Application Review is a meeting of less than 30 minutes. Level 2 Pre-Application Review is a meeting exceeding 30 minutes in length and requiring research and preparation. $2OO $5O Level 1:$100 Level 2:$200 Level 1 Environmental Review/Initial Study preparation involves small projects that are not exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Level 2 Environmental Review/Initial Study preparation involves large complex projects that require detailed and lengthy analysis. Full Consultant Cost plus 15% administration fee Levell:$100 Level2:$200 Level 1 Mitigation Monitoring involves the required monitoring of mitigations established in Level I Initial Studies. Level 2 Mitigation Monitoring involves the required monitoring of mitigations established in Level 2 Initial Studies. 18 Archaeological Search -for Environmental Review Public Hearing Continuations requested by the applicant that require Re-noticing Penalty/Violation (proceeding without permit) Zoning/Planning Research Specific Plan/Master Plan Review Address Change County Airport Land Use Commission Referral for Land Use Plan Consistency Determination Outdoor Sales/Display (Temporary) Building Permit Review Fee for Discretionary Review Projects Cost - SSU Northwest Information Center $5O Double the cost of the permit Level 1:$50 Level 2:$100 Level 1 Zoning/Planning Research means research taking 1 to 2 hours Level 2 Zoning/Planning Research means research taking more than 2 hours $1800 Affordable Housing Project: $450 $100 $150 $150 (Level 1 Minor Use Permit) $5O 19 Document and Map Fees General Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Master Bike/Ped Plan Airport Master Plan Airport Good Neighbor Policy Document Landscaping Guidelines Design Guidelines Creek Plans General Plan Map (color) General Plan Map (B&W) Zoning Map (color) $30.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $25.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $3O.OO $10.O0 $3O.OO $10.O0 Zoning Map (B&W) Misc Maps/Graphics/Reports Photo Copy (per page) $5.00-$30.00 $0.20 Affordable Housing Projects: Projects proposing 100% of the housing units to be "locked-in" affordable to citizens earning less than 50% of the area median income, "sweat-equity" residential projects, residential second units, and projects involving housing for identified groups in need such as seniors, homeless persons, and the mentally ill. 2O EXHIBIT B GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66014 66014. Fees must be reasonable for zoning variances, building permits and processing applications (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of la,v, ~vhen a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; filing and processing applications and petitions filed with the local agency formation commission or conducting preliminary proceedings or proceedings under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Division 3 (commencing with Section 56000) of Title 5; the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7; or planning services under the authority of Chapter 3 (commencing ~vith Section 65100) of Division I of Title 7 or under any other authority; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. (b) The fees charged pursuant to subdivision (a) may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations. (c) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the ordinance, resolution, or motion authorizing the charge of a fee subject to this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 66022. [Amended, Chapter 963, Statutes of 2002] ITEM NO. ~J;~d DATE: April 20 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION INCREASING FEES INCREASING FEES FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE UKIAH FIRE DEPARTMENT In 1991 the Ukiah Fire Department resurrected our emergency medical transportation service and upgraded it to the Advanced Life Support level. Since its inception the programs intent has been to deliver high quality emergency medical care to the citizens and visitors of Ukiah. The City historically structured the fees to recover the cost of the operation of our Ambulance Program and up until last year these fees were adequate to cover the cost of operating this program however with the increasing costs related to personnel and supplies we are at a point where we need to consider raising our fees. Attachment "C" demonstrates the projected costs of operation for FY 05/06 vs FY 04/05. The projection for FY 05/06 is based on an increase in the Advanced Life Support fees of $200.00 per call. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution for Fees for Ambulance Services ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 1. Leave fees at the current rate 2. Provide staff with alternative fees Citizen Advised' N/A Requested by: Fire Department Prepared by: Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: APPROVED: mfh:ASRCityCouncil Agendasummary A, B. C. D. E. Current Ambulance Service Resolution Recommended Revised Fees for Ambulance Service Resolution Cost Analysis of 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 Ambulance Operation 6 Year Cost Comparisons Mendocino County Ambulance Rate Survey Candace Horsley, ~,ty Manager RESOLUTION NO. 95-40 Attachment # RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING FEES FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE UKIAH FIRE DEPARTMENT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that effective immediately the City Council adopts the following fees for the provision of ambulance service by the Ukiah Fire Department: · ALS ambulance service ...................................................................... $573.00 ALS mileage @ $12.00 per mile (1) ................................................. Ambulance night call (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) (2) ........................... BLS ambulance service ...................................................................... BLS mileage @ $12.00 per mile (3) ................................................. EKG/not purchased (4) ........................................................................ Oxygen administration and supplies ................................................ Service charge for returned check ...................... .: ............................. Wait time/per 15 minutes (5) ............................................................... Dry Run ................................................................................................... ·. 12.00 65.00 350.00 12.00 75.00 80.00 15.00 29.00 150.00 Mileage only charged from the scene of the emergency to the hospital. 2. Charge added to charge for basic service. 3. Mileage charged only from scene of the emergency to the hOspital. 4. EKG charged only for BLS ambulance, EKG included in charge for ALS ambulance. 5. Charged where ambulance is required to remain at the scene or at the hospital -for an expanded period for reasons other than delivery of services related to the call. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 15th day of March, 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Malone, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter None ABSENT'Councilmembers Mastin and Wattenburger .ATTACHMENT__~ RESOLUTION NO. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING FEES FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE UKIAH FIRE DEPARTMENT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that effective immediately the City Council adopts the following fees for the provision of ambulance service by the Ukiah Fire Department: ALS ambulance service ............................................ $773.00 ALS mileage @ $14.00 per mile (1) ............................ 14.00 BLS ambulance service ............................................ 350.00 BLS mileage @ $14.00 per mile (2) ............................ 14.00 EKG/not purchased (3) ............................................. 75.00 Oxygen administration and supplies ............................ 80.00 Service Charge for returned check .............................. 25.00 Wait time/per 15 minutes (4) ..................................... 29.00 Dry Run ................................................................ 150.00 o . Mileage only charged from the scene of the emergency to the hospital. Mileage charged only from scene of the emergency to the hospital. EKG charged only for BLS ambulance, EKG included in charge for ALS ambulance. Charged where ambulance is required to remain at the scene or at the hospital for an expanded period for reasons other than deliver of services related to the call. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 20th day of April, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: A"FI'EST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Uvila, City Clerk Resolution 2005- Page 1 of 1 Attachment ~ City of Ukiah Adopted Fire Department and Proposed Ambulance Service Budgets For Fiscal Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 Total Adopted Fire Ambulance Ambulance Department Budget Budget FY2004- Budget FY2005- FY0405 O5 06 AMBULANCE FEES 436,000.00 ~.~.~.,336.67 486,020.00 Salaries, Regular ( 3 firefighter/paramedics) Administrative Salaries Paramedic Stipend (11 qualified firefighters) Salaries, Non-Reg Salaries, Overtime & Holiday Total Salaries 1,217,053.00 162,537.00 167,413.11 10,986.00 11,315.58 39,600.00 39,600.00 40,788.00 2,275.00 - 116,772.00 54,670.00 56,310.10 1,375,700.00 267,793.00 275,826.79 Retirement (PERS) Group Insurance Worker Comp Insur Medicare Unemployment Insu FICA Uniform Allowance Total Benefits Total Personnel Costs: 153,844.00 19,812.00 26,876.50 121,242.00 17,568.00 18,095.04 55,030.00 8,688.00 8,948.64 16,445.00 3,151.00 3,245.53 4,264.00 653.00 672.59 607.00 10,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 362,232.00 51,672.00 59,638.30 1,737,932.00 319,465.00 335,465.09 Travel & Conferen Ambulance Billing Dues & Subscriptions Fire Apparatus Ambulance Repair Dispatch Services Allocated Insurance Ambulance Permit Fuels & Lubricant Special Supplies Fire-only costs (aggregate) Total Non-personnel Costs: 13,650.00 6,841.00 6,977.82 33,790.00 33,790.00 34,465.80 501.00 130.00 132.60 20,600.00 9,527.50 9,718.05 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,100.00 218,128.00 - 42,242.00 11,000.00 11,220.00 7,086.00 7,086.00 7,227.72 9,500.00 5,737.50 5,852.25 9,300.00 9,300.00 9,486.00 215,199.00 574,996.00 88,412.00 90,180.24 Ambulance Replacement: $152,500 @ 10 yrs x 3 units Fire Engine Replacement: $350,000 @ 15 yrs x 1 unit x 46.25% Total Capital Replacement Fund Contribution Total Costs Net Ambulance Contribution (Cost) to General Fund 45,750.00 45,750.00 10,791.67 10,791.67 56,541.67 56,541.67 464,418.67 482,187.00 (20,082.00) 3,833.00 ASR Ambulance Rates 3/30/2005 Cost Summary # luouJqo~ /~,TTACHME~7 0 0 0 ~Ti-ACHMENT,~"' # lue~uqool~V ITEM NO. ~--" DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS AND PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS Over the last five years the City of Ukiah, in partnership with the County of Mendocino, and Cities of Fort Bragg and Willits, have been engaged in negotiations with Adelphia Communications for the renewal of the cable franchise within each respective jurisdiction. A draft agreement (Attachment #1 ) has been completed and is now being circulated to the respective agencies for consideration. As the majority of this Council was not in service during the course of the negotiations, staff is providing a brief history of the process and presenting the draft agreement for Council discussion only. No action is being requested at this time, however, Council direction regarding the terms and conditions of the agreement are warranted. The two possible processes for negotiating the renewal of a franchise agreement between a public agency and a cable provider are either formal or informal. The informal process is set up to allow for open negotiations between the jurisdiction granting the franchise and the cable company. It is beneficial for most agencies to first attempt to complete the renewal informally as it is less expensive and the open negotiations generally provide an opportunity to secure better terms and enhanced financial benefits in the form of increased PEG money to the franchise granting agency. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: After discussion of proposed agreement provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Adelphia Communications Adelphia Communications Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Draft Agreement 2. Cable Act Section 656 3. Needs Assessment Excerpt Ca-~ace' H0}sley, City~,nager LD/ZIP2 CableNegotiationsU pdate41305 The formal renewal process as defined in Section 626 of the Federal Cable Act generally involves a potentially more expensive administrative and legal process for all parties. Negotiations between Adelphia and the Mendocino County team to date have been under the "informal" process. In the event that the informal process falters or fails, the formal process may be invoked by either party. For Council's information staff has provided a narrative description of the formal renewal process, in Attachment #2, which was provided by the Mendocino team's consulting firm of Communications Support Group (CSG). The negotiations, which began in 2000, have been lengthy primarily due to the legal and financial issues which Adelphia has faced. In June 2002 Adelphia filed for bankruptcy after an accounting scandal resulted in the conviction of the company's Chairman and Chief Financial Officer. Due in large part to the legal issues involving Adelphia's corporate management, its pending bankruptcy, and resistance to any commitment for Public, Education, and Government (PEG) channel funding, negotiations have been sporadic and difficult. As a result the Mendocino County team was faced with a revolving door of negotiators representing Adelphia which created an inconsistent and disruptive negotiation process. The consulting company of Communications Support Group, led by Mr. John Risk was retained by the four agencies to assist and represent the negotiating team with technical issues, proposal development, and actual negotiations. The two main issues which have been the focus of negotiations are funding for PEG and the length of the term of the agreement. A needs assessment completed early in the process by CSG showed a county- wide need of approximately $1.5 million for PEG capital. As Ukiah has no current equipment or PEG service, $746,300 of that amount was identified for the inland Ukiah area. An excerpt of the needs assessment is provided in Attachment #3. Although initially adamant in its position to eliminate PEG funding entirely, Adelphia has agreed to grant $1,000,000 for PEG capital to be paid out over the first nine years. The specific payment schedule is five payments of $200,000 each, paid in years 1,2,4,6,9. These funds would be shared by the four jurisdictions based on subscribership. Ukiah's subscribership is approximately 3,800 within the City limits and an additional 3,900 in the unincorporated Ukiah area. This equals approximately 50% of the total Mendocino County subscribership or an estimated $500,000. The specific amount of PEG money available to inland Ukiah will depend upon the exact number of subscribers at the time and the terms of the agreement between the County and City for distribution of the unincorporated area funds. In addition, Adelphia has been willing to add an additional grant during years 10 to 15 in the amount of $.25 per subscriber per month for every new subscriber over the number of subscribers existing on January 1 prior to the effective date of the agreement. Staff has attached an excerpt from a preliminary draft agreement, which details the breakdown of the funding. Negotiations also focused on the length of the term of the agreement. Adelphia, is obviously seeking a longer term agreement of fifteen years. Adelphia's reasoning is that if the company is going to invest $1,000,000 in PEG funding it requires at least that length of time to recover the investment. There has been some discussion by the previous Council to seek a ten year agreement on the basis that the public agencies could negotiate for more capital at that time. Adelphia has indicated it would agree to a ten year agreement, however, the PEG funding will be reduced to $667,000. CSG and the negotiating team believe the longer term agreement is more beneficial in order to guarantee the full amount of PEG funding. A major factor which must be considered is the rural nature of the Mendocino County franchise and the Iow number of subscribers per mile of cable. The cable industry is also under significant market and regulatory change which could eliminate PEG funding entirely and place the burden for PEG funding on the local agencies to pay for out of the 5% franchise fee. In addition, new services relating to Internet and information services are being added to the menu provided by cable companies which are not currently included in the franchise fee base. CSG has indicated that some of these services are likely to be added to the franchise fee base to replace PEG funding. The agreements proposed for all four public agencies are essentially the same with the exception of each agency's respective PEG funding based on subscribership, and minor details relating to local regulatory issues. The County Board of Supervisors has received the County agreement and is still reviewing it. Fort Bragg and Willits will be reviewing the agreement in the next few weeks. The City's agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Staff is presenting the agreement with this status report for Council discussion and direction as to any desired revisions to the terms and conditions of the draft agreement and to determine a timeline for approval. Attachment AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND ADELPHIA GRANTING NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO CONSTRUCT AND TO OPERATE A CABLE SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF UKIAH AND SETTING FORTH TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS. o , . . , TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PARTIES; NOTICES; RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY GRANTED .................................... 3 1.1. Parties to the Agreement .......................................................................................... 3 1.2. Representatives of the Parties and Service of Notices ............................................. 3 1.3. Definitions ................................................................................................................ 4 1.4. Conflicts ................................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Grant ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.6. Acceptance Required ............................................................................................... 4 1.7. Duration ................................................................................................................... 4 1.8. Agreement Not Exclusive ........................................................................................ 4 1.9. Scope of the Agreement ........................................................................................... 4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 6 2.1. Governing Requirements ......................................................................................... 6 2.2. Fee on Gross Annual Revenue ................................................................................. 6 2.3. Payment to Grantor .................................................................................................. 8 2.4. Insurance Requirements ........................................................................................... 8 2.5. Security for Grantee's Performance ......................................................................... 9 2.6 Fair Employment Practices .................................................................................... 11 RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE GRANTOR .................................................................... 11 3.1. Reservation ............................................................................................................ 11 3.2. Delegation of Powers ............................................................................................. 11 3.3. Right to Inspect Construction ................................................................................ 12 3.4. Right to Require Removal of Property .................................................................. 12 3.5. Right of Intervention .............................................................................................. 12 3.6. Option to Acquire the Cable System and Infrastructure ........................................ 12 SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL SERVICES ............................................. 12 4.1. System Construction .............................................................................................. 12 4.2. Notices Relating to System Construction .............................................................. 12 4.3. Services for Public, Educational and Community Facilities .................................. 13 4.4. Emergency Alert Capability ................................................................................... 13 4.5. Parental Control Devices ....................................................................................... 14 4.6. Technical Standards ............................................................................................... 14 4.7. No Offset Against Fees .......................................................................................... 15 SERVICES, PROGRAMMING, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS .... 15 5.1. Rates and Charges for Services and Equipment .................................................... 15 5.2. Consumer Protection and Service Standards ......................................................... 15 5.3. Broad Categories of Cable Services ....................................................................... 15 5.4. Subscriber Surveys ................................................................................................. 16 -i- o e o 10. 11. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUPPORT OF LOCAL CABLE USAGE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................ 16 7.1. System Construction and Extension ...................................................................... 16 7.2. Construction Components and Techniques ........................................................... 17 7.3. Technical and Performance Standards ................................................................... 18 7.4. Construction Codes ................................................................................................ 18 7.5. Construction Default .............................................................................................. 18 7.6. Vacation or Abandonment ..................................................................................... 18 7.7. Abandonment in Place ........................................................................................... 18 7.8. Removal of System Facilities ................................................................................ 18 7.9. Movement of Facilities .......................................................................................... 19 7.10. Undergrounding of Cable .................................................................................... 19 7.11. Facility Agreements ............................................................................................. 19 7.12. Repair of Streets and Public Ways ....................................................................... 19 7.13. Erection of Poles Prohibited ................................................................................ 19 7.14. Reservation of Street Rights ................................................................................ 20 7.15. Miscellaneous Design and Construction Requirements ...................................... 20 COMPLIANCE AUDITS AND TECHNICAL DATA .....................................................22 8.1. Compliance, Performance Audits, and future PEG support .................................. 22 8.2. System Testing and Technical Data ....................................................................... 23 8.3. Emergency Repair Capability ................................................................................ 24 REVOCATION, TERMINATION, OR FORFEITURE ...................................................24 9.1. Revocation ............................................................................................................. 24 9.2. Grounds for Revocation, Termination, or Forfeiture ............................................. 24 9.3. Removal of Property .............................................................................................. 25 RECORDS; REPORTS; RIGHT TO INSPECT AND AUDIT; EXPERTS ..................... 25 10.1. Grantee to Provide Records ................................................................................. 25 10.2. Records ................................................................................................................ 25 10.3. Maintenance and Inspection of Records .............................................................. 26 10.4. Reports of Financial and Operating Activity ....................................................... 26 10.5. Performance Tests and Compliance Reports ....................................................... 27 10.6. Additional Reports ............................................................................................... 27 10.7. Communications with Regulatory Agencies ....................................................... 27 10.8. Inspection of Facilities ......................................................................................... 27 10.9. Right to Audit ...................................................................................................... 28 10.10. Retention of Experts ............................................................................................ 28 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 29 11.1. Notice and Hearing upon Grantee's Default ........................................................ 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 12. 13. 14. 11.2. Delegation ............................................................................................................ 29 11.3. Stop Work Notice ................................................................................................ 30 11.4. Authorized Fines, Penalties, and Other Sanctions ............................................... 30 CONTINUITY OF CABLE SYSTEM SERVICES .......................................................... 31 12.1. Continuity of Service ........................................................................................... 31 12.2. Operation and Management by Grantor ............................................................... 31 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................................. 32 13.1. Assignment, Transfer, Sale, and Change of Control ........................................... 32 13.2. Force Majeure ...................................................................................................... 33 13.3. Possessory Interest ............................................................................................... 34 13.4. Indemnification .................................................................................................... 34 13.5. Bankruptcy of Grantee ......................................................................................... 34 13.7. Resolution of Disputes ......................................................................................... 34 13.8. Waiver by Grantor ............................................................................................... 35 13.9. Severability .......................................................................................................... 35 13.10. Amendments ........................................................................................................ 35 13.11. Binding Upon Successors .................................................................................... 35 13.12. Counterpart Execution ......................................................................................... 35 13.13. Applicable Law .................................................................................................... 35 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 36 15. AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE ......................................................................... 41 15.1. Authority .............................................................................................................. 41 15.2. Effective Date ...................................................................................................... 41 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F SECTION 1.11.2 OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE AS ADOPTED AND IN EFFECT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT OWNERSHIP CHANNEL CAPACITY/SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS CABLE SYSTEM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES SUPPORT OF LOCAL CABLE USAGE GRANTOR'S UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ooo 111 CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT This Cable Franchise Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this ~ day of ,2004, at Ukiah, California, by the City of Ukiah, a political subdivision of the State of California ("Grantor"), and Century Mendocino Cable Television, Inc. dPo/a Adelphia Cable Communications ("Grantee" and/or "Adelphia"). RECITALS WHEREAS, under applicable laws, the City of Ukiah ("City") has the authority to regulate the use of Streets, public rights-of-way (Public Rights-of-Way), and other City property, and to grant access thereto upon certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to promote the availability of high quality and diverse Cable Services to City residents, businesses, the City, and other public institutions; to promote the availability of diverse information resources to the community, including through the development of advanced Cable Systems that can support public, educational, and governmental programming; to promote competitive Cable Services and rates; to take advantage of technologies to provide for more open government; to enhance educational opportunities throughout the community and provide opportunities for building a stronger community; and to allow flexibility to respond to changes in technology, Subscriber interests, and competitive factors within the cable television industry that will positively affect the health, welfare, and well-being of the community; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by federal, state and local law to manage the use of Public Rights-of-Way and to Franchise Operators of Cable Systems which use such Public Rights-of-Way; and WHEREAS, Adelphia is currently operating a cable system within the City pursuant to a Franchise Agreement initially entered into with Group W Cable, Inc. on December 6, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement was transferred to Century Communications and later transferred to Adelphia; and WHEREAS, the term of the Franchise Agreement expired on December 6, 2000 and Adelphia has been operating on a month to month basis since that time; and WHEREAS, in June 2002, Adelphia filed for creditor protection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, Chapter 11 U.S.C. § 365. and is a debtor in possession of the cable system while in reorganization; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant, renew and deny Franchises for the installation, operation and maintenance of Cable Systems within the City's boundaries by virtue of federal and state statutes, by the City's police powers, by its authority over its Public Rights-of-Way and by other lawful City powers and authority; and WHEREAS, Adelphia has requested a renewal of its Cable Franchise and has proposed to operate a state-of-the-art telecommunications system and to provide advanced telecommunications services to the City, its residents and Subscribers; and WHEREAS, the City, in conjunction with the California cities of Fort Bragg and Willits and the California County of Mendocino (the "Consortium"), undertook a review of Cable Service in the City, including but not limited to a review of Adelphia's proposed facilities design, the present and future cable-related community needs of the City, and Adelphia's ability to carry out its commitments and its overall financial, legal and technical qualifications to hold a City Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing and hereby finds that it would serve the public interest to grant the Franchise renewal subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the City Code Section 1.11.2. In connection with Adelphia's request to construct and to operate a Cable System, Adelphia has offered to (i) provide certain services to the Grantor, including public, educational, and governmental access channels (PEG); and (ii) pay to the Grantor a percentage of the revenues that it receives from the provision of Cable System services to its subscribers in the City; and WHEREAS, the City, in conjunction with the other members of the Consortium; negotiated the terms of this Agreement with Adelphia, in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City negotiated this Agreement with Adelphia in conjunction with the other members of the Consortium, and, therefore, there are direct and indirect references to the other members of the Consortium contained in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Grantee has agreed to comply with the provisions of this Agreement and Section 1.11.2 of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, as it now exists ("Section 1.11.2"). A copy of Section 1.11.2 is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, Grantor's City Council has reviewed the present and future cable-related needs of the City and its residents, and Adelphia's financial, legal, and technical qualifications to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and has determined following a noticed public heating that the public interest would be served by authorizing Adelphia to construct and operate a Cable System subject to the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of Section 1.11.2. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.11.2 and this Agreement, Grantor grants to the Grantee, and Grantee accepts from the Grantor, nonexclusive rights to construct and to operate a Cable System. 1. PARTIES~ NOTICES~ RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY GRANTED. 1.1. Parties to the Agreement. (a) Grantor: The City of Ukiah, a political subdivision of the State of California, having its principal office at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482. (b) Grantee: Century Mendocino Cable Television, Inc. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, whose ownership interests are set forth in the attached Exhibit B incorporated herein by this reference, and having an office at 5619 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO 80111. 1.2. Representatives of the Parties and Service of Notices. The representatives of the parties who are primarily responsible for the administration of this Agreement, and to whom notices, requests, demands and other communications must be given, are as follows: (a) Notices, requests, demands, and other communications to be given by either party must be in writing and may be effected by personal delivery, by overnight courier, by first class mail, or by certified mail, remm receipt requested. (b) If the name or title of the principal representative or other recipients designated to receive the notices, requests, demands, and other communications, or the address of those persons, is changed, written notice must be given at least five (5) working days before the Effective Date of that change. (c) The principal representative of the Grantor is: Office of the City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 (d) The principal representative of the Grantee is: General Manager Adelphia Cable Communications 1060 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 and to: Adelphia Communications Corp. Attn: Legal Department 1125 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 300 Colorado Springs, CO 80920 1.3. Definitions. Unless otherwise defined, or unless the use or context clearly requires a different definition, the words, terms, and phrases and their derivations, as used in this Agreement, have the meanings set forth below in Section 14. 1.4. Conflicts. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Section 1.11.2, the provisions of this Agreement will control. 1.5. Grant. This Agreement confers upon the Grantee the authority, right, and privilege to construct, operate, and maintain a Cable System in the "designated service area," which is defined as the incorporated territory of the City of Ukiah as existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement, and any additional territory that may be added to the designated service 'area during the term of this Agreement. Grantee's construction of the Cable System within the designated service area will be in compliance with the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement. 1.6. Acceptance Required. This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date of the Resolution authorizing this Agreement as defined in Subsection 15.2., or on the date specified as the Effective Date in that Resolution. On or prior to its Effective Date, Grantee must file with the City Manager a written acceptance of the Resolution approving this Agreement. 1.7. Duration. The term ofthis Agreement is fifteen (15) years from the Effective Date as specified in Subsection 1.6. Any renewal of the Agreement will be in accordance with then applicable law. 1.8. Agreement Not Exclusive. The rights granted by this Agreement may not be construed to limit in any manner the right of Grantor, through its authorized officers and in accordance with applicable law, to grant to other individuals or entities, by franchise, permit, license, or otherwise, any rights, privileges or authority similar to or different from the rights, privileges and authority set forth herein, in the streets, public ways, public places, or other property that the Grantee is entitled to occupy; provided, however, that those additional grants will not operate to revoke, terminate, or modify any rights granted to Grantee by this Agreement. 1.9. Scope of the Agreement. (a) Subject to Grantee's compliance with Grantor's permit procedures applicable to construction, encroachments, excavations, and pole attachments, Grantee is authorized and obligated to construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain its Cable System within the public streets and rights-of-way. Grantee agrees to operate the Cable System within the specifications attached Exhibit C. (b) The authority granted by this Agreement includes the privilege to use the Grantee's Cable System in the designated service area for the provision of both cable and any other service authorized by law. (c) Grantor reserves all rights it now has or subsequently acquires with respect to the future authorization and regulation of non-video services, including, but not limited to, the right to impose reasonable terms and conditions in addition to or different from those set forth in this Agreement with respect to the provision of any non-video services, and to charge a fee or other form of consideration or compensation on those non-video services in lieu of that specified herein; provided that those terms and conditions and that fee or other form of consideration or compensation must not be in conflict with federal and state law applicable to non-video services; and provided further, that the Grantor and Grantee will negotiate in good faith an agreement as to those terms and conditions and that fee or other form of consideration or compensation. Grantee reserves all rights it now has or may subsequently acquire with respect to the provision of non-video services and does not waive any rights it may have to provide those services. (d) Grantor acknowledges that Grantee, upon the initial activation of its Cable System, intends to offer to its subscribers various residential communications services, including certain non-video services that, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, are not subject to regulation by Grantor. Before offering or distributing on a commercial basis any new non-video services to subscribers within the designated service area, Grantee will, as an accommodation to Grantor, use all reasonable efforts to provide advance written notice to Grantor of its intent to offer or distribute such non-video services and a description of those services. Such notice by itself confers no jurisdiction or authority upon Grantor to regulate non- video services. (e) In approving this renewal and grant of Franchise, Grantor reserves any fights it may have to impose lawful conditions regarding access by third parties to Grantee's Cable System for the delivery of Internet access service, and Grantor's approval of the renewal and grant shall not be deemed to have waived any such fights it may have to impose such lawful conditions at a later date, regardless of whether an assignment, transfer of control or renewal is pending at that time. Grantee likewise does not waive any right it may have with respect to the imposition of such a condition. Prior to the enactment or enforcement of any such requirement, Grantee shall be provided with reasonable notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an opportunity to present evidence on any findings made or required to be made with respect to such a requirement. (f) Grantor and Grantee expressly reserve the right to seek a judicial determination as to whether any particular service offered by Grantee on its system constitutes cable service for purposes of this Agreement. 1.10. Renewal Application Fee. County may establish a franchise renewal application fee as may be permitted by state and federal law. Said fee shall not exceed $7,500.00. The $7,500.00 renewal application fee may be adjusted based upon increases in the cost of living index for the Mendocino County area,. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. 2.1. Governing Requirements. Grantee must comply with all provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Section 1.11.2 as it exists on the Effective Date of this Agreement (except as it may be inconsistent with this Agreement), and all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. 2.2. Fee on Gross Annual Revenue. (a) As compensation for the rights granted by this Agreement, and in consideration for Grantor's authorization to use its streets and public ways for the construction, operation, and maintenance of Grantee's Cable System, the Grantee will pay to the Grantor a fee of five percent (5%) of its gross annual revenue, as defined in Section 14 of this Agreement, received by Grantee from the operation of the Cable System in the Grantee's designated service area. Grantor acknowledges that, during the term of this Agreement, Grantee may offer to its subscribers, at a discounted rate, a bundled or combined package of services consisting of video services, which are subject to the fee referenced above in paragraph (a), and other services that are not subject to that fee. With regard to such bundled or combined services, the following provisions are applicable: 1. During the term of this Agreement, if Grantee, or any of its affiliates, bundles or combines the sale of some or all of its video services with non-video services, and it becomes necessary to separately compute the amount of gross annual revenue attributable to video services in order to determine the amount of fees or PEG access support fees that are payable to the Grantor, then the following methodology will be applied: Grantee must calculate and report gross annual revenue, the fees thereon, and any applicable PEG access support fees, based upon proportionality, i.e., the amount of gross revenue to be attributed to each of such services must be in the same proportion that the price of each service, as determined on a stand-alone basis, bears to the aggregate of the stand-alone prices for those services when purchased on an unbundled basis. 2. Grantee will not structure the pricing of any bundled or combined services so as to intentionally or unreasonably cause a reduction in the gross annual revenue against which franchise fees or other proportionately-derived taxes, surcharges, or fees may be imposed by the Grantor. 3. If Grantor reasonably believes that Grantee has unlawfully, inequitably, or contrary to this Subsection 2.2(a)1 allocated gross annual revenue between video services and non-video services in calculating franchise fee payments, then the parties will meet upon advance notice from the Grantor to discuss the allocation methodology. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute within a reasonable period of time, then the parties will submit the matter to a mutually approved third party for mediation. The cost of the mediation will be shared equally by the parties. If the mediation is not successful, or if the parties cannot mutually agree upon a mediator, then either party may file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction or pursue any other remedies available under the law or this Agreement. 4. In recognition of the regulatory uncertainties that exist on the Effective Date of this Agreement with regard to bundled services that are offered at a discount, the parties reserve all rights, claims, defenses, and remedies they may have relating to Grantor's authority to impose and to enforce requirements concerning the revenue allocation methodology to be applied in calculating franchise fee payments on gross annual revenue that is derived from the sale to subscribers of video services and non-video services in a discounted package. (b) The fee specified above in paragraph (a) must be computed and paid by Grantee to Grantor's Finance Department not later than forty five (45) days after the end of each calendar quarter. The payment must be accompanied by a report that contains the following information relating to the preceding calendar quarter: 1. The total gross revenue collected by Grantee, and an itemization of the various categories of gross revenue collected during that calendar quarter. 2. The methodology used by Grantee in determining any proration of revenues, such as those derived from advertising sales and home shopping commissions, among Grantor and other local franchising authorities that are within the regional cluster. 3. The percentage of subscribers within the designated service area as compared to the total number of subscribers in the regional cluster that includes Grantee's franchise service area and such related information concerning those subscribers as may be required by Grantor to verify and validate Grantee's calculations as to the proration of revenues, such as those derived from advertising sales and home shopping commissions, among Grantor and other local franchising authorities served by the Grantee. (c) If the payment of any fee on Grantee's gross annual revenue, or any recomputed amount of such fee, is not made on or before the dates specified in Subsections 2.2 or 2.3, Grantee must pay to Grantor as additional compensation an interest charge, computed from the applicable due date, at a rate equal to eight percent (8%) percent per annum. (d) In addition to the interest charge on a late payment that is imposed in accordance with paragraph (c) above, if a payment continues to be delinquent for a period of ten (10) days following expiration of the time for cure of this default, as specified in Subsection 11.1(a), Grantor may treat that delay as a material breach, subject to all applicable provisions of Subsection 9.2 (a) and Section 11 of this Agreement. (e) Grantee acknowledges its obligation to pay the fee specified above in paragraph (a), which is the maximum percentage amount authorized by 47 U.S.C. §573 (c)(2)(B) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended. If Congress, the FCC, or a court of competent jurisdiction alters this fee requirement in a manner that materially changes the benefits or obligations of either party, then the parties agree to comply with the requirements of such applicable law. (f) Grantee may pass through franchise fees to cable subscribers in accordance with federal law. 2.3. Payment to Grantor. (a) No acceptance of any payment by Grantor may be construed as an accord that the amount is in fact the correct amount, nor may acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the Grantor may have against Grantee for any additional sums payable under the provisions of this Agreement. (b) All amounts paid are subject to independent audit and recomputation by Grantor, as provided for in Subsection 10.9. 2.4. Insurance Requirements. (a) Upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, must obtain and maintain for the full term of this Agreement, all of the following insurance coverages: 1. Types of Insurance and Minimum Limits. The coverages required below may be satisfied by any combination of primary liability and excess liability policies. A. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance in conformance with the laws of the State of California B. Grantee's vehicles, including owned, leased, or hired vehicles, must each be covered with Automobile Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. C. Grantee must obtain and maintain Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance coverage in the aggregate annual amount of $3,000,000 combined single limit, including bodily injury, personal injury, and broad form property damage. This insurance coverage must include, without limitation, contractual liability coverage adequate to meet the Grantee's indemnification obligations under this Agreement. 2. All required Automobile Liability Insurance and Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance policies must contain an endorsement in substance as follows: "The City of Ukiah is added as an additional insured as respects the operations of the named insured under the Cable System Franchise Agreement entered into by the City and the named insured." 3. The insurance required of Grantee under this franchise is primary, and no insurance held by Grantor may be called upon to contribute to a loss under this coverage. 4. All insurance policies must provide that, in the event of material change, reduction, cancellation, or non-renewal by the insurance carder for any reason, not less than thirty (30) days' written notice will be given to Grantor by registered or certified mail of such intent to cancel, materially change, reduce, or not renew the coverage. An authorized agent of the insurance carder must provide to the Grantor, on such schedule as is requested by the Grantor, a certification that all insurance premiums have been paid and all coverages are in force. If for any reason Grantee fails to obtain or keep any of the insurance in force, Grantor may (but is not required to) obtain that insurance. In that event, Grantee must promptly reimburse Grantor its premium costs, plus one percent (1%) monthly interest thereon until paid. 5. All insurance must be obtained from companies that are authorized to transact business in California and that have a rating of A- or better in Best's Insurance Guide. 6. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions are subject to the Grantor's prior approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. (b) Prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Grantee must provide to Grantor written insurance binders, statements of property coverage, certificates of insurance, or certified copies of policies evidencing the required coverage as specified by Grantor. 2.5. Securi _ty for Grantee's Performance. (a) Secud _ty for Grantee's Performance of Construction Obligation.q. If Grantee commences new system construction such that more that twenty-five percent (25%) of its plant is upgraded or replaced, on or before the date the Grantee commences construction, Grantee must provide to Grantor a construction bond in the amount of $500,000. The construction bond will guarantee the Grantee's faithful performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Prior to construction, Grantee will prepay or make a deposit towards the cost of Grantor's inspection fees and administrative costs. The construction bond will guarantee emergency repairs to public improvements that may be damaged in the course of Grantee's construction of the Cable System, and will guarantee that, upon any abandonment or other permanent cessation or'termination of the work relating to the construction of Grantee's Cable System, the Grantor's streets, highways, and public rights-of-way will be restored to the condition existing prior to Grantee's construction work, and the facilities of the Cable System will either be removed or abandoned in place, as may be directed by the Grantor's principal representative. (b) Upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of Grantor, the Construction bond may be released. Upon completion of the construction Grantee will provide the Grantor written notice. Within thirty (30) days of such notice, Grantor will release the construction bond obligation from Grantee. (c) SecuriW Fund for Correcting Matters of Non-Compliance, Defective Work and Other Obligations. Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, Grantee must provide to Grantor a security fund to guarantee the Grantee's performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The security fund shall consist of a $30,000 irrevocable, replenishable letter of credit to the order of Grantor and a $100,000 performance bond. The security fund shall apply to Grantee's operations throughout the jurisdiction of Grantor. The security fund is subject to and must comply with the following requirements: 1. The irrevocable, replenishable letter of credit and the performance bond shall be in a form approved by Grantor's City Attorney. The letter of credit and performance bond shall be maintained in the required amount throughout the term of this Agreement. 2. The security fund will be available to Grantor to satisfy any and all claims, penalties, liens, fees, payments, costs, damages, or taxes due Grantor from Grantee that arise by reason of the construction, reconstruction, operation, or maintenance of the cable system. Grantor may elect whether to make a demand on the letter of credit or a claim against the performance bond, or both. 3. After the procedural requirements specified in Section 11 of this Agreement have been satisfied, if Grantee fails or refuses to pay to Grantor any amounts due under the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Grantor may draw against the letter of credit or claim against the performance bond on the unpaid amount plus accrued interest by making a demand in the form required by the letter of credit or performance bond. After the Grantor has made such a demand, Grantor must give written notice to Grantee of the amount, date, and the basis for the claim within five (5) days of making such demand. 4. Provided that Grantor follows the procedures for drawing down on the letter of credit or claiming against the performance bond, Grantee shall not initiate litigation to prevent or impair Grantor from assessing the security fund. Grantee's remedy, in the event Grantee believes any assessment against the security fund is improper, shall be through a legal action against Grantor after the security fund has been drawn upon by Grantor. In the event Grantor's action is found improper by a court of competent jurisdiction, Grantee shall be entitled to a refund of the monies withdrawn from the letter of credit or paid from the performance bond plus interest from the date of withdrawal or payment. 10 5. Unless Grantee has initiated litigation against Grantor that the Grantor's assessment against the security fund has been improper, Grantee shall replenish the letter of credit and/or performance bond to the amount required in this Agreement within sixty days (60) days of receipt of written notice from Grantor to Grantee that an amount has been withdrawn from the letter of credit by Grantor or paid from the performance bond. 6. Within sixty (60) days after expiration of the term of the Franchise, Grantee will be entitled to a release of the letter of credit and performance bond provided, however, that Grantee is not then in default of its obligations under this Agreement. 7. The rights reserved to Grantor with respect to the security fund are in addition to all other rights of Grantor pursuant to this Agreement. Grantor's exercise of rights with respect to the security fund will not constitute an election of remedies or a waiver of any other rights Grantor may have under this Agreement or any applicable law. (d) Adjustments. 1. Fifth Anniversary_. Upon written request from the Grantor within ninety (90) days of the fifth anniversary of this Agreement, Grantee shall increase the amount of the Letter of Credit by $10,000, making the total amount of the Letter of Credit equal to $40,000. Grantee shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of such written request to implement this increase. 2. Tenth Anniversary_. Upon written request from the Grantor within ninety (90) days of the tenth anniversary of this Agreement, Grantee shall increase the amount of the Letter of Credit by an additional $10,000 making the total amount of the Letter of Credit equal to $50,000. Grantee shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of such written request to implement this increase. 2.6. Fair Employment Practices. (a) During the term of this Agreement, Grantee must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to fair employment practices. (b) Grantee represents that, during the term of this Agreement, Grantee and any parties with whom it may contract will adhere to equal opportunity employment practices to ensure that applicants and employees are treated equally and are not discriminated against because of their race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Grantee further represents that it will not maintain any segregated facilities. 3. RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE GRANTOR. 11 3.1. Reservation. Grantor reserves every right it may have in relation to its power of eminent domain over Grantee's contractual rights and property. 3.2. Delegation of Powers. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, and except with regard to the grant, transfer, termination, revocation, or forfeiture of the Agreement, any right or power in, or duty retained by or imposed upon Grantor, or any officer, employee, department, commission, or board of Grantor, may be delegated by Grantor to any officer, employee, department or board of Grantor, or to such other person or entity as Grantor may designate to act on its behalf. 3.3. Right to Inspect Construction. The Grantor has the right to inspect all construction, installation, or other work performed by Grantee in connection with the Agreement, and to make such tests as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement, so long as that inspection and testing does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's operations. 3.4. Right to Require Removal of Property_. Consistent with applicable law, at the expiration of the term of the Agreement, or upon its lawful revocation or termination, the Grantor has the right to require the Grantee to remove, within a reasonable period of time that will not be less than one hundred eighty (180) days, and at Grantee's expense, all portions of its Cable System and any other property from all streets and public rights-of-way within the designated service area. 3.5. Right of Intervention. Grantor has the right to intervene in any suit, proceeding, or other judicial or administrative proceeding in which the Grantee is a party and in which the Grantor has any material interest. 3.6. Option to Acquire the Cable System and Infrastructure. Grantee agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 627 of the Cable Act. 4. SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL SERVICES. 4.1. System Construction. Grantor acknowledges that the Grantee's system was recently rebuilt to the standards described in Exhibit G. These provisions shall be the minimum standards that apply to any subsequent reconstruction of Grantee's system. 4.2. Notices Relating to System Construction. (a) Notices to Local Newspaper. If requested by Grantor, Grantee must publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation before commencing construction of any phase of the Cable System that would affect more than twenty five percent (25%) of its subscribers. The notice must be published not less than thirty (30) days prior to construction. The notice must provide a general summary of the proposed construction, and a telephone number that the public may call for additional information. 12 (b) Other Notices. 1. Grantee will provide to Grantor at least forty five (45) days prior written notice before commencing construction of any phase of the Cable System. 2. At least forty eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled construction date, Grantee must provide additional notice to residents within the proposed construction area by the use of door hangers that set forth a general description of the construction project, the anticipated dates of construction, and a telephone number for the Grantee that a resident may call with any questions or concerns. If driveways are to be blocked, additional notice must be given by Grantee to affected residents, as required by Subsection 7.15(g), which notice must specify the dates that access will be blocked. 4.3. Services for Public, Educational and Community Facilities. (a) Grantee will install, maintain, and repair, without charge, at a point of demarcation to be specified by Grantor, one cable drop at each of the public, educational and community facilities identified in Exhibit D. (b) Grantee will provide, without charge, extended basic analog cable service to one outlet at each of the public, educational and community facilities identified in Exhibit D. The parties agree that reasonable substitutions of locations identified in Exhibit D may be required from time-to-time, and those substitutions may be negotiated in a manner that is mutually beneficial to the parties. (c) Upon Grantor's written request, Grantee will also install additional drops and outlets for video services at specified public, educational and community administrative facilities. Grantor will pay Grantee for such additional drops and outlets at Grantee's cost for labor and materials. (d) Grantor will inform Grantee of the construction of new public, educational, and community facilities so that exterior and interior connections and cable drops can be installed by Grantee at the time of construction in order to minimize costs. One cable drop will be installed by Grantee without cost to Grantor, provided that the new facility requires no more than a standard 150-foot aerial drop line from the main feeder line. Grantor will pay Grantee for additional drops, connections, outlets, and construction costs at such new facilities at Grantee's cost for labor and materials. 4.4. Emergency Alert Capability. 13 (a) In constructing the Cable System, Grantee must comply with all FCC rules and regulations relating to the national Emergency Alert System CEAS"). To the extent that it is technically feasible and authorized by law, Grantee will provide the system with emergency override capability to enable Grantor's public safety personnel and designated public officials to cablecast emergency messages by interrupting and overriding the audio signals of all cable channels using remote coded-access activation devices at one or more sites to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Equipment providing for this emergency override capability will be installed by Grantee at these sites, at no expense to Grantor. (b) In the event of any conflict between the federally-mandated Emergency Alert System ("EAS") and the requirements of Grantor's emergency override system, the federally-mandated EAS will have priority. 4.5. Parental Control Devices. (a) Grantee must provide subscribers upon request with a "trap," "lockbox," digital code, or similar parental control device that enables a subscriber to block the reception of video and audio signals from selected channels on the Cable System, including any premium or pay-per-view channel that is scrambled. (b) No additional, continuing charge for the use of any such parental control device may be imposed by Grantee if that device is incorporated into equipment, such as a decoder, for which a subscriber is already paying a charge. (c) Upon request, Grantee must provide to subscribers written instructions on the methods by which selected channels on the Cable System may be restricted or blocked. 4.6. Technical Standards. (a) The FCC Rules and Regulations, including Part 76, Subpart K (Technical Standards), and any amendments or supplements thereto, will apply to the Grantee's operations to the extent permitted by applicable law. (b) The Grantor's obligations relating to the provision of emergency power for the Cable System include the following: 1. Grantee must provide standby emergency power equipment for its headend and for its fiber optic equipment transmitters and receivers, regardless of whether that fiber optic equipment is located at the headend or in the trtmk or distribution system of the Grantee's plant. 2. Grantee's obligation to provide a standby emergency power supply includes the installation of equipment that cuts in automatically during a utility power failure and reverts automatically to commercial power when it is restored. Backup power 14 supplies and associated equipment must be tested on a regular basis. Test results must be recorded in logs that are available upon request for inspection by the Grantor. 3. All standby emergency power equipment will be installed, activated, and maintained by the Grantee at its sole expense and, during a commercial power interruption, must be capable, at a minimum, of powering the Cable System as follows: for plant amplifiers, not less than one and one-half (1 ½) hours; for nodes, a period of time that is consistent with acceptable industry standards; and for headend and hub, twelve (12) hours. 4. When one or more commercial power outages exceed a cumulative total of twenty four (24) or more hours during any twelve (12) month period in areas other than those where power is not available to residential subscribers, Grantee and Grantor may confer for the purpose of determining whether there is a need to develop a plan to reduce outage time below twenty four (24) hours. (c) The Cable System must be designed, installed, and operated to comply with the following general requirements: 1. Twenty four (24) hour daily operation. . signals by non-subscribers. Avoid causing interference with the reception of off-the-air 3. Operate in a wide range of outdoor temperatures that typically occur within the designated service area. 4. Assure that all subscribers will receive standard color and monochrome signals on the FCC-designated Class 1 channels without noticeable picture degradation or visible evidence of color distortion, or other forms of interference that may be attributable to deficiencies in the Cable System. 4.7. No Offset Against Fees. In accepting this Agreement, Grantee acknowledges that the costs of the commitments specified in this Section 4 will not be offset against any fees payable by Grantee to Grantor during the term of this Agreement. 5. SERVICES, PROGRAMMING, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS. 5.1. Rates and Charges for Services and Equipment. Grantor reserves the right to regulate Grantee's rates and charges for cable services and equipment in the manner and to the extent permitted by law now or in the future. 5.2. Low Income persons have special needs. The Grantor reserves its rights to require special discounts for qualified low income person consistent with state and federal law. 15 5.3. Consumer Protection and Service Standards. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Grantee must comply with the requirements of Subsections 1.11.2.1902 to 1.11.2.1907 and all applicable state and federal laws: and regulations relating to consumer protection and service standards that are referenced. In the event of any conflict between local, state and federal requirements, the strictest standards shall apply. 5.4. Broad Categories of Cable Services. (a) Grantee must provide, at a minimum, the following broad categories of programming: local broadcast stations; news and weather; music; financial and business programming; cultural programming; contemporary movies; general entertainment; sports programming;; PEG access channel programming; family programming (including health and religious programming) and children's programming. (b) If any broad category of programming listed above in paragraph (a) becomes unavailable, or cannot be provided by Grantee under existing FCC regulations, then Grantee must provide, to the extent feasible, reasonably comparable programming. o SUPPORT OF LOCAL CABLE USAGE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. (a) The obligations of the Grantee that relate to the support of local cable usage, including the provision of adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, and financial support, are set forth in the attached Exhibits D and E. Grantee acknowledges that the costs of the commitments specified in Exhibit D and E will not be offset against any fees payable by Grantee to Grantor during the term of this Agreement. (b) Any pass-through to subscribers of costs incurred by Grantee in performing its obligations under Exhibit D and E must be in accordance with all applicable regulations, formulas, and requirements of the FCC. 7. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. 7.1. System Construction and Extension. (a) The Cable System must be operated in accordance with Exhibits C, and all other applicable provisions of this Agreement. (b) Throughout the designated service area, Grantee is obligated to design and to construct its Cable System in order to pass every single-family dwelling unit, multiple- dwelling unit, hospital, rest-home, boarding house, school, and governmental building, subject to the following requirements and exceptions: 16 1. Grantee must make its Cable System services available to residential dwelling units in all residential areas; provided, however, that Grantee's extension of its Cable System to residential dwelling units in residential areas that are annexed to the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement will be subject to the line-extension requirements set forth below in Subsection 7.1 (b)2. 2. Where residential dwelling units (or any other structure referenced in Subsection 7.1 (b) above) are located in an area that does not meet the density requirement of at least thirty (30) homes per cable mile, Grantee is not obligated to provide service. However, Grantee must provide, upon the written request of a prospective subscriber desiring service, an estimate of the costs of extending service. These costs will be apportioned as follows: If there are ten (10) residential dwelling units per cable mile, then Grantee's share will equal 10/30 or one-third (1/3) of the construction costs. These line-extension requirements will also apply to a portion of a cable mile that meets proportionate density requirements. Thus, if there are fifteen (15) residential dwelling units per one-half mile, then Grantee must construct its Cable System plant without requiting a capital contribution from prospective subscribers. Grantee may require an advance payment or an assurance of payment satisfactory to Grantee. If the area later achieves the density required for mandatory extensions of service, the amounts paid will be deemed to be consideration for early extension. 3. Subject to the exceptions set forth below in Subsection 7.1 (b)4, Grantee must extend and make its Cable System services available to owners or occupants of all residential dwellings who request connection, at the standard connection charge, if that connection requires no more than a standard 150-foot aerial drop line from the main feeder line. If a connection requires more than a standard 150-foot aerial drop line, or an underground service connection, the prospective residential subscriber must be given the option of paying the incremental cost for that installation. 4. If additional territory is annexed to the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement, and an incumbent cable operator is then serving that annexed territory, then Grantee may, but is not required to, overbuild in order to provide Cable System services to residential dwelling units in that territory. (c) Grantor may require Grantee to extend and make its Cable System services available to commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential zones within the designated service area subject to the density requirements stated above. (d) Service to prospective subscribers residing in multiple-dwelling units need only be provided if, after evaluating the terms and conditions for access that may be imposed by an owner or manager of such multiple-dwelling units, the Grantee determines that those terms and conditions are reasonably acceptable; provided, however, that Grantee will use all reasonable diligence to negotiate agreements with owners or managers of multiple-dwelling units to provide Cable System service. 17 7.2. Construction Components and Techniques. Construction components and techniques must comply with the terms of this Agreement and all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and pole attachment agreements that relate to the management and use of the public rights-of-way. 7.3. Technical and Performance Standards. Grantee must construct, reconstruct, install, operate, and maintain its Cable System in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, FCC technical standards, and the additional standards and requirements that are set forth in Exhibit F of this Agreement. 7.4. Construction Codes. The Grantee must strictly adhere to all building and zoning codes now or hereafter in force and must obtain all necessary permits. Any such permits issued by Grantor will be processed in a timely manner and will not be unreasonably delayed or denied. The Grantee will make every reasonable effort to arrange its lines, cables, and other appurtenances, on both public and private property, in such a manner as to minimize interference with the use of that property by any person. In the event of such interference, the Grantor may require the removal or relocation of the Grantee's lines, cables, and appurtenances from the property in question. Grantee must give at least forty eight (48) hours advance notice to all property owners prior to installing any additional above-ground or underground structures upon easements located on private property. Grantor will not modify its construction requirements subsequent to the completion of construction so as to require reconstruction or retrofit unless the public health and safety so requires. 7.5. Construction Default. Upon the failure, refusal or neglect of Grantee to undertake or complete any phase of construction, repair, relocation or other necessary work as required by this Agreement, thereby creating an adverse impact upon the public health, welfare or safety, Grantor may (but is not required to) cause that work to be completed, in whole or in part, and upon so doing will submit to Grantee an itemized statement of costs. Grantee will be given reasonable advance notice of Grantor's intent to exercise this power, and fifteen (15) days to cure the default, unless a different period for cure is specified in Exhibit F. Grantee must, within thirty (30) days of billing, pay to Grantor the actual costs incurred. 7.6. Vacation or Abandonment. If any street, alley, public highway, or portion thereof used by the Grantee is vacated by the Grantor, or its use is discontinued by the Grantor, then upon reasonable notice the Grantee may be required to remove its facilities, unless otherwise specifically authorized, or unless easements for Cable System facilities have previously been reserved. Following that removal, Grantee must restore, repair, or reconstruct the area in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit F. Upon any failure, neglect, or refusal of the Grantee, at~er thirty (30) days' notice by the Grantor, to do such work, Grantor may cause it to be done, and within thirty (30) days of billing, Grantee must pay to Grantor the actual costs incurred. 7.7. Abandonment in Place. Grantor may, upon written application by Grantee, approve the abandonment in place by Grantee of any property, under such terms and conditions 18 as Grantor may approve. Upon Grantor-approved abandonment in place of any property, Grantee must cause to be executed, acknowledged, and delivered to Grantor such instruments as Grantor may prescribe and approve in order to transfer and convey ownership of that property to Grantor. 7.8. Removal of System Facilities. If Grantee's plant is deactivated for a continuous period of thirty (30) days, (except for reasons beyond Grantee's control), and without prior written notice to and approval by Grantor, then Grantee must, at Grantor's option and demand, and at the sole expense of Grantee, remove all of Grantee's property from any streets or other public rights-of-way in accordance with Subsection 9.3. Grantee must promptly restore the streets or other public areas from which its property has been removed, including aerial tnmk and feeder lines, in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit F. 7.9. Movement of Facilities. If Grantor determines it is necessary to move or to relocate any of the Grantee's property because of a conflict with a public project, Grantee, upon reasonable notice, must move, at the expense of Grantee, its property in order to facilitate that public project. No such movement or relocation may be deemed a taking of Grantee's property. 7.10. Undergrounding of Cable. Cables must be installed underground at Grantee's cost where all existing utilities are already underground or all new utilities are being installed underground in the area in accordance with the Grantor's adopted undergrounding policy. Previously installed aerial cable will be installed underground at Grantee's pro rata cost in concert with other utilities when aerial facilities are required to be placed underground con:tn:ct:.c,n pursuant to a policy or program by Grantor to underground existing overhead wires, or as otherwise may be required by law. 7.11. Facili _ty Agreements. This Agreement does not relieve Grantee of any obligations to obtain pole or conduit space from Grantor, any utility company, or others maintaining utilities in Grantor's streets. 7.12. Repair of Streets and Public Ways. All disturbance or damage to streets and public ways, and to improvements located within those streets and public ways, caused by the Grantee or its contractors during the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Cable System, must be restored at Grantee's expense, within the time frame specified by Grantor, and in accordance with all applicable requirements of Exhibit F. 7.13. Erection of Poles Prohibited. (a) Grantee may not erect any pole on or along any street or public way where there is an existing aerial utility system. If additional poles in an existing aerial route are required, Grantee must negotiate with the appropriate public utility, including the Grantor if applicable, for their installation. Any such installation requires the advance written approval of the Grantor. 19 (b) Subject to applicable federal and state law, the Grantee must negotiate the lease of pole space and facilities from the existing pole owners for all aerial construction, under mutually acceptable terms and conditions. No pole line may be extended solely for the purpose of accommodating Grantee's facilities. Line extensions beyond any existing pole line must be underground where practical. 7.14. Reservation of Street Rights. Nothing in this Agreement precludes the Grantor from constructing, repairing, or altering any public work or improvement. That work will be done, insofar as practicable, in such manner as not to unnecessarily obstruct, injure, or prevent the use and operation of any property of Grantee. If, however, any property of Grantee interferes with the construction, maintenance, or repair of any public improvement, that property must be removed or replaced in such manner as may be directed by Grantor so as not to interfere with the public work or improvement, and that removal or replacement will be at the expense of the Grantee. Grantor will give Grantee sixty (60) days prior written notice of any public work or improvement that may require the removal or replacement of Grantee's property; provided, however, that if the public work or improvement is necessitated by an emergency situation, notice will be given as far in advance as is reasonably feasible under the circumstances. 7.15. Miscellaneous Design and Construction Requirements. (a) Underground Installation of Conduit and Other Facilities. All underground installation by Grantee of conduit and other facilities related to its system must be in compliance with the Grantor's requirements, standards, and specifications that are set forth in Exhibit F. (b) New Development-Underground Utility_ Areas. Where new construction or property development occurs, and utilities are to be placed underground, Grantor will use its best efforts to require the developer or property owner to give reasonable notice to Grantee of that new construction or development. Grantee may be involved in all design aspects of the new construction or development that relate to the infrastructure required for Cable System service, including the provision of specifications and engineering assistance prior to construction. The costs of easements, trenching, and construction of the conduits required to bring Cable System service to the new construction or development will be borne by the Grantee, the developer, or the property owner, as may be agreed upon among them. Grantee will be notified of any date on which the installation of conduit, pedestals, vaults, or laterals will be available for Grantee's inspection. Grantee will bear all costs of installing cable, amplifiers, and other equipment required to construct and operate the Cable System. (c) Antennas and Towers. Antenna supporting structures, including towers, that are owned by or operated for Grantee must comply with all applicable electrical codes and FCC specifications, and must be erected, illuminated, painted, and maintained in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as local ordinances and regulations that require the Grantor's approval of the siting of towers or other support structures within the City. 20 (d) Tree Trimming. Grantee is authorized (but not required) to engage a licensed tree service contractor to trim trees on public property, at its own expense, as may be necessary to protect its wires, facilities, and equipment, subject to the direction and supervision of the Grantor. Trimming trees on private property that is not subject to a public easement requires the written consent of the property owner or occupant. Each licensed tree service contractor proposed to be engaged by Grantee must be in possession of a valid City business license. (e) Mitigation of Adverse Visual Impacts. Grantee must take all reasonable measures, at its expense, to mitigate the adverse visual impacts of all power pedestals and flush- mounted equipment in accordance with the same standards and regulations that are prescribed by the City Engineer or other City designee and imposed by the Grantor upon the incumbent Cable System operator and upon public utilities. These measures may include, without limitation, (i) the installation of landscaping to minimize public view of any authorized above-surface power pedestals; (ii) the maintenance of the equipment in good condition, including compliance with Grantor's ordinances requiring graffiti removal; and (iii) the placement of overhead drops as close as possible to other utility drops, consistent with all applicable electrical codes. Ongoing maintenance of any landscaping required to mitigate adverse visual impacts is the responsibility of the property owner or the Grantee under Grantee's easement agreements. Grantee must regularly inspect all above-grade facilities located in the public rights-of-way and must complete any required maintenance or repairs within thirty (30) days after any such inspection. Grantee must respond within seven (7) days to requests or complaints received from the Grantor or members of the public relating to the repair, replacement, or cleanliness of above-grade facilities. (f) Use of Chalk-Based Paints. Grantee must use only chalk-based paints to mark public rights-of-way in connection with the construction or maintenance of the Cable System. All paint marks remaining after Grantee's cleanup following the completion of construction or maintenance work must be removed by Grantee by means of sand-blasting, chemicals, or high-pressure water within thirty (30) days following receipt of Grantor's written notice requesting such removal. (g) Vehicle Access to Private Property. If an owner's vehicle access to private property is anticipated to be precluded for more than three hours during any construction, operation, or maintenance of the Grantee's Cable System, then Grantee must give at least twenty- four (24) hours prior written notice to the owner. (h) Location of Utilities. Grantee must verify the location of all existing utilities to ensure that they are not damaged during construction or maintenance of the Cable System. Grantee must be a member of Underground Service Alert and must contact that entity 48 hours in advance of any underground construction in order to ensure that utilities are not damaged. Grantee is solely responsible for the replacement or repair of any utilities that are damaged by Grantee or its agents during construction or maintenance activities. 21 (i) "As-Built" Construction Drawings. Following Grantee's construction of any new built portion of the Cable System, Grantee's updated "as-built" map will be available for review by Grantor at Grantee's local office during normal business hours. 22 8. COMPLIANCE AUDITS AND TECHNICAIJ DATA. 8.1. Compliance, Performance Audits, and future PEG support modifications. (a) Grantor may, at its option, and upon reasonable advance notice, require that compliance audits of the Cable System be conducted annually by an independent technical consultant selected and employed by Grantor, and at Grantor's expense, to verify that the system complies with all technical standards and other specifications of this Agreement. Grantee must be provided an opportunity to be present during any compliance audit, and the Grantor must deliver a copy of the test results to Grantee. If the test results demonstrate that Grantee has materially failed to comply with required technical standards, the cost of the compliance audit will be borne by Grantee. (b) Within ninety (90) days after the third, seventh, and, if applicable, the twelfth, anniversary dates of this Agreement, and at any other time, upon Grantor's request, Grantor and Grantee will meet to review the performance of the Cable System. This review may include consideration of the following: 1. The test results relating to Grantee's compliance with technical standards and specifications. 2. The reports required by this Agreement that relate to subscriber complaints received by the Grantee concerning technical problems or service-related issues. 3. The types and quality of services provided by Grantee, and the extent to which the Grantee's then-existing bandwidth is adequate to accommodate those services without degradation or loss of quality and to accommodate the anticipated demand for channel capacity on the Cable System by unaffiliated video programming providers. 4. Reports submitted by Grantee or any other person that address Grantee's compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 5. Changes in Cable System technology and services, including but not limited to a comparison of the Grantee's technology and services with those of any other franchised multi-channel video programming provider then operating in the City, and an evaluation of established, operating state-of-the-art technology in comparable communities and the economic and technical feasibility of providing interactive, addressable, and other new services. 6. Changes in state and federal laws and regulations that affect the operation of the Cable System. 23 7. An assessment of the PEG access and community connectivity needs of the Grantor that ,,~:-~is reasonably anticipated to exist. (c) Within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of a system performance review meeting, Grantor may issue findings with respect to system compliance as required under this Agreement. If noncompliance with required performance standards is identified, Grantor may direct Grantee to correct the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time. (d) Participation by Grantor and Grantee in this system performance and compliance review process does not impose upon Grantee any obligation not imposed by federal or state law, and neither Grantor nor Grantee waive any rights they may have under applicable federal or state law. (e) In addition to the meetings provided for under Subsection 8.1 (b) above, and upon Grantor's reasonable request, Grantee will meet with Grantor's representatives to discuss the extent to which the technology and services of the Cable System are comparable to established, operating state-of-the-art technology in franchised multichannel video programming systems serving comparable communities such as Santa Rosa, CA or other similar communities in California or adjacent states, it being understood by the parties that Grantee will provide to subscribers in the designated service area a level of overall service that is comparable, on average, to the services provided by multichannel video programming system operators that are then operating in similar communities in California or adjacent states. Nothing in this Agreement, however, may be deemed to require that Grantee provide a service where it is not technically or economically feasible to do so. Topics for discussion at these meetings may also include, without limitation, the future use of interactive services, the sharing of local production facilities with other jurisdictions, and the provision of additional capacity for public, educational, or governmental access channels. 8.2. System Testing and Technical Data. (a) Grantee must conduct performance testing of its Cable System, including its signal quality, in accordance with FCC rules and regulations. Upon Grantor's request, those test results will be provided to Grantor by Grantee. (b) During the phased construction of the Cable System, Grantee will incorporate test equipment wherever feasible in order to continuously monitor the system for outages and signal quality. (c) Upon Grantor's request, Grantee will provide to Grantor access to copies of"as-built" system drawings and technical documentation as specified in Subsection 7.15(i). Grantor may not disclose this information to third parties without the Grantee's prior written approval. 24 (d) Grantee must maintain at its local office specified in Subsection 1.2(b) a file of all documents that are required by the FCC or other governmental agencies to be made available for public inspection during normal business hours and upon reasonable advance notice. Grantee may charge a reasonable fee for any copies of documents that may be requested. 8.3. Emergency Repair Capability. It is Grantee's responsibility to ensure that its personnel are qualified to make repairs, that they are available at all reasonable times, and that they are supplied with keys, equipment location instructions, and technical information necessary to begin repairs upon notification of the need to maintain or restore continuous service to the Cable System. 9. REVOCATION, TERMINATION, OR FORFEITURE. 9.1. Revocation. Consistent with applicable law, and in addition to all rights and remedies provided elsewhere in this Agreement, Grantor reserves the right to revoke, terminate, or declare a forfeiture of this Agreement, subject to the procedural guidelines set forth in Section 11 of this Agreement, if the Grantee, whether willfully or negligently, violates any material provision of this Agreement and, following notice, thereafter fails to correct or remedy that violation in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 9.2. Grounds for Revocation, Termination, or Forfeiture. Where the Grantee's violation is determined to constitute any of the following, each of which is deemed to be a material provision of this Agreement, the Grantor may revoke, terminate, or declare a forfeiture of this Agreement and all rights and privileges associated with it. (a) Grantee's failure to pay delinquent fees for a period of ten (10) days following expiration of the time specified for cure of this default, as provided for in Subsection 11.1(a), unless Grantee is in good faith contesting that payment in a court or governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. (b) Grantee's failure to provide or to maintain the insurance coverage in the amounts specified in Subsection 2.4. (c) Grantee's failure to provide or to maintain the performance bond and letter of credit specified in Subsection 2.5. (d) Subsection 13.4. Grantee's failure to honor its indemnification obligations as specified in (e) Grantee's failure to receive and maintain all required approvals from the Federal Communications Commission in connection with its operation of the Cable System, unless Grantee is in good faith contesting that failure in a court or governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. 25 (f) Grantee's material violation of any final order or ruling of any regulatory body having jurisdiction over the Grantee relative to the Cable System services authorized by this Agreement, unless that order or ruling is in good faith being contested by the Grantee before the regulatory body or in a court of competent jurisdiction. (g) Grantee's willful attempt to evade compliance with any provisions of this Agreement or Section 1.11.2, or to practice any fraud or deceit upon the Grantor or upon existing or prospective subscribers. (h) Grantee's wrongful cessation of Cable System services to its subscribers for reasons within Grantee's control; provided that Grantee will not be determined to be at fault under any provision of this Agreement in any case where the performance of that provision is excused or excusable under Subsection 13.2. (i) Grantee's persistent failure or refusal to remedy violations, defaults, breaches, or incidents of noncompliance for which lesser penalties have previously been imposed, unless Grantee is then contesting the same in good faith in a court or governmental agency of competent jurisdiction. (j) Grantee's falsification of information set forth in any report required to be submitted to Grantor under this Agreement. 9.3. Removal of Property. Upon any termination, revocation, or forfeiture of this Agreement prior to completion of construction of the entire Cable System, Grantee may be required to remove its structures and property from the Grantor's streets and to restore those streets to their prior condition within a reasonable period of time specified by Grantor, but not less than one hundred eighty (180) days Upon Grantee's failure to do so, in addition to any other remedies available to Grantor, the Grantor may perform the work and collect all costs, including direct and indirect costs, from the Grantee. At Grantor's discretion, the cost of that work may be placed as a lien upon all plant, property, or other assets of the Grantee or a claim may be asserted against the performance bond referenced in Subsection 2.5(a). 10. RECORDS; REPORTS; RIGHT TO INSPECT AND AUDIT; EXPERTS. 10.1. Grantee to Provide Records. All reports and records required under this Section 10 must be furnished at the sole expense of Grantee. 10.2. Records. Grantee must maintain and make available for inspection and copying during normal business hours, and upon reasonable notice, a separate and complete set of business records that are reasonably related to Grantee's performance of this Agreement or Grantor's regulatory functions. Grantee need not maintain all such records at the office specified in Subsection 1.2(b), but will make them available for inspection at that location unless alternate arrangements are agreed upon by Grantor and Grantee. 26 10.3. Maintenance and Inspection of Records. Grantee must maintain accurate books and records, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Grantor, upon reasonable notice, has the right to inspect those books and records of all maps, financial, statements, service complaint logs, performance test results, and other like materials which are reasonably necessary to monitor compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Grantor may receive copies to the extent that information is reasonably related to the scope of the Grantor's rights under this Agreement or Grantor's regulatory functions. For the purpose of this Section 10.3, the term "proprietary information" means any written information or data that the Grantee is required under this Agreement to submit to the Grantor, or to make available for inspection by the Grantor, which enables the Grantor to perform its regulatory functions relating to the Grantee's provision of cable services, and which, if disclosed to other persons, would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the Grantee. Grantor will cooperate with Grantee in an effort to preserve and to protect, to the maximum extent authorized by law, the privileged and confidential nature of all proprietary information that, at the time it is submitted to or inspected by Grantor, is clearly identified by Grantee as being "proprietary, privileged, and confidential." If Grantor receives a request under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.), or under any legal process that may require disclosure of Grantee's information, data, or documents that have been identified as "proprietary, privileged, and confidential," then Grantor will: (i) give Grantee prompt written notice of that request; and (ii) use all reasonable efforts to defer disclosure until Grantee determines to waive compliance with the provisions of this Section 10, or to seek an appropriate protective order, or to pursue such other legal remedies as may be necessary to protect the privileged and confidential nature of Grantee's proprietary information. This Section 10.3 is in all respects subject to the California Public Records Act, which will supersede the provisions of this section in the event of any conflict. This Section 10.3 does not require the Grantor to incur court costs, attorneys' fees or other expenses to protect the confidentiality of Grantee's proprietary information. 10.4. Reports of Financial and Operating Activity. (a) Not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the close of each fiscal year of Grantee during the term of this Agreement, Grantee must submit to the Grantor a financial report, verified by a designated financial representative of Grantee, that sets forth the gross annual revenue from all sources within the designated service area, the annual gross subscriber revenues derived from each tier of service in the designated service area, the total amount and basis for the computation of the annual fees paid to Grantor, and such other relevant facts as may reasonably be required by Grantor to verify the accuracy of the payment of fees on gross annual revenue. To the extent authorized by law, Grantor will protect the confidentiality of information contained in Grantee's business records that are deemed by Grantee to be proprietary, except as may be ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction after reasonable written notice to Grantee. Grantee will retain for at least four (4) years documents that serve as the basis for this financial report. (b) During the term of this Agreement, and upon Grantor's request, Grantee must submit reports concerning any or all of the following operational matters: 27 1. A summary of Grantee's activities within the designated service area including, but not limited to, services added or discontinued, changes in technology, and the number of new installations. 2. A current list of Grantee's officers, directors, and other principals. 3. A summary of outage records and routine service-related calls received from subscribers for installation and service. If Grantee's collection and tabulation of subscribers' service calls and complaints covers a geographic area that is more extensive than the designated service area, then Grantee must use its best efforts to estimate the number of those service calls and complaints originating in the designated service area and must inform the Grantor of the methodology used in making those estimates. 4. A summary of subscriber complaints that were referred to Grantee by the Grantor, including the date of referral, the nature of the complaint, and the corrective action taken. 5. A description of the nature and purpose of any new construction that is anticipated to commence within the following two (2) years. 6. A summary of Grantee's compliance with the Consumer Protection Standards that are referenced in Exhibit E. 10.5. Performance Tests and Compliance Reports. Upon Grantor's request, and not more than once annually, Grantee must provide a written report of any required FCC tests that have been conducted. In addition, Grantee must provide reports of any tests and compliance procedures required by this Agreement not later than thirty (30) days after the completion of those tests and compliance procedures. 10.6. Additional Reports. The Grantee must prepare and submit to the Grantor in writing, at the times and in the form reasonably prescribed by Grantor, all additional reports that may reasonably be required with respect to Grantee's compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. Grantor will cooperate with Grantee and will accept existing reports that contain substantially similar information meeting this requirement. 10.7. Communications with Regulatory_ Agencies. Copies of all nonroutine and material communications between the Grantee and the Federal Communications Commission, or any other agency having jurisdiction in respect to any matters directly affecting the Cable System operations authorized by this Agreement, must be submitted to the Grantor within ten (10) days after their receipt or submittal by Grantee. 10.8. Inspection of Facilities. Upon reasonable notice, and during normal business hours, Grantee must permit inspection by any duly authorized representative of Grantor of all 28 facilities located within the designated service area as well as Grantee's headend, which may be located outside the designated service area. Grantee may appoint one or more representatives to accompany Grantor's representatives on any such inspection. 10.9. Right to Audit. (a) In addition to all other inspection rights under this Agreement, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, Grantor has the right to inspect and audit, during normal business hours, documents pertaining to the Grantee's operations in the designated service area that are reasonably necessary to the Grantor's enforcement of its rights under this Agreement. Those documents will be made available at the Grantee's local office unless Grantor and Grantee agree otherwise. To the extent authorized by law, information derived from any records identified by Grantee as being proprietary will be held in confidence by Grantor, except as may be ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction after reasonable written notice to Grantee. (b) Any audit conducted by Grantor under this subsection will be conducted at the sole expense of Grantor, not more frequently than once in any 12-month period. Grantor will prepare a written report containing its findings, a copy of which will be mailed to the Grantee for its review. Grantee must reimburse Grantor for the expense of any such audit if, as the result of that audit, it is determined that there is a shortfall of more than four percent (4%) in the amount of fees on gross annual revenue or other payments that have been made or will be made by Grantee to Grantor under the terms of this Agreement. That reimbursement must be made by Grantee within thirty (30) days of written notice from the Grantor. There shall be an accord and satisfaction with respect to any payment not subject to audit within thirty six (36) months following the close of the fiscal year to which such payment relates. (c) In the event that Grantee claims to have overpaid by more than five percent (5%) the amount of franchise fee actually due during any given quarter, it shall file an application with the City within twelve (12) months following the close of the fiscal year to which such quarterly payment relates. The failure to timely and properly make such claim as required herein shall constitute a waiver by Grantee of any right to such claimed overpayment, whether by refund, offset, credit or any other accommodation. All such applications shall state the amount of claimed overpayment, the reason for the claimed overpayment, and sufficient documentation to allow the City to verify Grantee's claim. Upon request by the City, Grantee shall provide any further information that is deemed by the City to be relevant to said claim. All such applications shall be considered by the City Council, and the City Council's decision with respect to such applications shall be final. 10.10. Retention of Experts. When deemed to be necessary for the exercise of its rights under this Agreement, Grantor has the right to retain technical experts and other consultants to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the provisions of this Agreement. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the Grantor will bear the cost of retaining those experts. 29 11. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. 11.1. Notice and Hearing upon Grantee's Default. (a) Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, prior to formal consideration by Grantor of any termination, revocation, or forfeiture of this Agreement, or the imposition of any fine, penalty or administrative remedy available to Grantor, including liquidated damages, attributable to Grantee's failure to comply with any material provision of this Agreement, Grantor must make written demand on Grantee with at least thirty (30) days notice to correct the alleged default. Grantor and Grantee will expeditiously meet to discuss the alleged default, at which time Grantee must indicate, in writing, the period of time reasonably required to cure the default. Giving due consideration to Grantee's request, Grantor will at that meeting, or within three (3) days thereafter, state in writing the reasonable period of time Grantor will allow Grantee to resolve the problem. During this time period for cure, but in no event less than ten (10) days before the final date for correction, Grantee may request additional time to correct the problem, and Grantor will grant that request if Grantor reasonably determines that such additional time is necessary due to delays beyond Grantee's control. If the default continues for a period of ten (10) days after the deadline for correction, including any authorized extension of time, a hearing before the City Council will be scheduled by Grantor with regard to termination, revocation, or forfeiture of this Agreement, or the imposition of any other fine, penalty, or administrative remedy, subject to the provisions specified below. No changes (b) Grantor will provide to Grantee written notice of the heating, including the grounds for the proposed action, not less than ten (10) days before the hearing. That written notice will also describe the procedures to be followed by the City Council to determine whether cause exists for termination, revocation, forfeiture, or the imposition of fines, penalties, or remedies. At a minimum, those procedures will afford the Grantee adequate notice and a fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence, to question and to cross-examine witnesses, and to obtain a transcript of the proceeding at Grantee's expense. At the hearing, the City Council will hear Grantee, and any other person interested in the matter, and will determine, at that or at any continued hearing, an appropriate course of action for enforcement of the Agreement. All decisions of the City Council will be in writing and will include findings of fact. A copy of the decision will be transmitted to the Grantee. The decision of the City Council will be final and dispositive but without prejudice to Grantee's fight to pursue any remedies provided by state or federal law. 11.2. Delegation. The proposed imposition of remedies, such as liquidated damages or monetary penalties, that do not involve termination, revocation, or forfeiture of the Agreement may, at Grantor's option, be determined by an officer, employee, or agency of the Grantor to which it may delegate these administrative decisions, subject to the procedural rules contained in this section, and subject to Grantee's fight to appeal to the City Council. The City Council must approve any such proposed imposition of remedies before they become effective. 30 11.3. Stop Work Notice. If any phased construction work is performed by or on behalf of Grantee in a manner that does not comply with the provisions of this Agreement, the Grantor's Public Works Director, or any other designee of the Grantor's, may order the work to be stopped. That order to stop work may be made by written notice and served upon any person engaged in or responsible for the construction, with a copy served within one working day upon the Grantee's principal representative designated in Subsection 1.2. No work that is stopped may be resumed until authorized by the Public Works Director or other designated representative of the Grantor. Grantor will have no liability for any revenues that may be lost by Grantee as a consequence of any stop work notice that is issued by Grantor. 11.4. Authorized Fines, Penalties, and Other Sanctions. (a) Grantor may impose fines, penalties, and other sanctions as set forth in this Subsection 11.4 for defaults under, or incidents of noncompliance with, the provisions of this Agreement. Grantor must first give Grantee written notice of the alleged default or incident of noncompliance in accordance with Subsection 11.1 (a) and an opportunity to correct the problem. (b) Following the expiration of any specified period within which Grantee has failed to cure a default or an incident of noncompliance as directed, the following fines, penalties, and other sanctions may be imposed by Grantor after the hearing required under either Subsections 11.1 or 11.2: 1. For Grantee's failure to comply in any material respect with any of the design and construction standards set forth in Section 7 of this Agreement, a penalty not to exceed $500 may be imposed for each day that the incident of noncompliance has not been remedied by the Grantee. 2. For Grantee's failure to comply in any material respect with the periodic performance testing requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of Subsection 8.2 of this Agreement, and failure to meet FCC signal quality standards for PEG access channels as required at Exhibit E subsection A(1)(5) of this Agreement, a penalty not to exceed $500 may be imposed for each day that the incident of noncompliance has not been remedied by the Grantee. 3. For Grantee's failure, in any material respect, to maintain or to provide any books, records, reports, or other documents in the manner and at the time specified in this Agreement, a penalty not to exceed $500 may be imposed for each day that the incident of noncompliance has not been remedied by the Grantee. 4. For Grantee's material breach of the Consumer Protection and Service Standards that are referenced in Exhibit E to this Agreement, except where the breach is not within the Grantee's reasonable control, a penalty not to exceed $200 may be imposed for each day that the incident of noncompliance has not been remedied by the Grantee. 31 5. For any other default or incident of noncompliance that is material and that is not specified in this Subsection 11.4, a maximum penalty not to exceed $350 may be imposed upon Grantee by Grantor for each day that the default or incident of noncompliance has not been remedied by the Grantee. 6. If any amounts become due under this section, Grantor must first make a demand for payment to Grantee before seeking payment under the Letter of Credit or performance bond. If Grantee does not make payment within thirty (30) days of written receipt of a request from Grantor, Grantor may make a demand on the Letter of Credit and/or the performance bond. 12. CONTINUITY OF CABLE SYSTEM SERVICES. 12.1. Continuity_ of Service. The parties acknowledge that it is the right of all subscribers to receive all services authorized by this Agreement so long as they honor their financial and other obligations to the Grantee. During Grantee's phased reconstruction of the Cable System, and upon any future sale of the system, Grantee must use commercially reasonable efforts to provide continuous service to subscribers. In the event of purchase by Grantor, or a change of operator, Grantee will cooperate with Grantor or the new operator to operate the system for an interim period in order to maintain continuity of service to all subscribers. If Grantee intentionally abandons all services on a system-wide basis for seventy-two (72) continuous hours or if this Agreement is revoked by Grantor, then Grantor may, by resolution, assume operation of the Cable System on an interim basis for the purpose of maintaining continuity of service. Grantor's operation of the system may continue until the circumstances that resulted in the cessation of cable services are resolved to Grantor's satisfaction. Grantor is entitled to receive all revenues and is responsible for all obligations and liabilities during any period in which it operates the system. 12.2. Operation and Management by Grantor. (a) During any period when the Cable System is being operated by Grantor under Subsection 12.1 above, Grantor will attempt to minimize the disruption of operations in a manner consistent with the maintenance of continuing service to subscribers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor may make any changes in any aspect of operations that, in Grantor's sole judgment, are required for the preservation of quality and continuity of service. During that period, Grantor will also maintain to the best of its ability the system's records, physical plant, financial integrity, funds, and other elements normally involved in operations. (b) Upon assuming operation of the Cable System, Grantor may appoint a manager to act for it in conducting the system's affairs. That manager will have such authority as may be delegated by Grantor and will be solely responsible to Grantor for management of the system. Grantee must reimburse Grantor for all reasonable costs, in excess of system revenues retained by Grantor that are incurred during Grantor's operation of the system during the term of this Agreement. 32 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 13.1. Assignment, Transfer, Sale, and Change of Control. (a) Consummation of the following transactions related to this Agreement, or involving the Grantee under this Agreement, requires the prior written consent of the Grantor's City Council expressed by ordinance or resolution, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, and then only under such conditions as may lawfully be prescribed: (1) The sale, transfer, lease, assignment, or other disposition of the rights granted by this Agreement, in whole or in part, whether voluntary or involuntary; provided, however, that such consent is not required for a transfer in trust, mortgage, or other hypothecation for the purpose of securing an indebtedness of the Grantee relating to the construction, reconstruction, operation, or maintenance of the Cable System. A transfer, assignment, or other disposition of this Agreement may be made only by an instrument in writing, a duly executed copy of which must be filed in the office of the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the consummation of that transfer, assignment, or other disposition. (2) Any merger, consolidation, reorganization, business combination, or other transaction that affects twenty five percent (25%) or more of the ownership interests in the Grantee, or in any parent company of the Grantee, and changes control of the Grantee. As used herein, "control" means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the Grantee. A duly executed copy of any written instrument evidencing the closing and consummation of any such transaction must be filed in the office of the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the closing and consummation of that transaction. (b) In determining whether it will consent to any transfer, assignment, or other disposition of the Agreement, or to any transaction affecting the control of the Grantee, the Grantor may evaluate the financial, technical, and legal qualifications of the proposed transferee or controlling person. Grantee must ensure that the proposed transferee or controlling person submits an application, in the form required by Section 1.11.2, or by any applicable federal law, prior to the closing date of the proposed transaction. After considering the financial, technical, and legal qualifications of the proposed transferee or controlling person, the City Council may, by resolution, authorize the proposed transaction, subject to such conditions as may be lawfully imposed in order to protect the public interest. Grantor's consent to any such transaction may not be unreasonably denied or delayed. (c) Grantee and its proposed transferee or controlling person are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursement to the Grantor of certain costs and expenses, not to exceed $2,500, reasonably incurred in evaluating and processing the application related to the 33 proposed transaction. These costs and expenses may include, as may be determined by the Grantor to be reasonably necessary, the following: costs of administrative review; financial, legal and technical evaluation of the proposed transferee; costs for technical experts and consultants; notice and publication costs; and document preparation expenses. The costs and expenses shall be paid in the form of an application fee in the amount of $2,500, which will be deemed to be a deposit for Grantee's reimbursement of costs and expenses to be incurred by Grantor. The $2,500 application fee shall be made by certified or cashier's check made payable to the Grantor and shall be submitted by Grantee to Grantor within thirty (30) days of filing an FCC Form 394 or related change of control or transfer of ownership form. An application will be considered incomplete without receipt of said deposit. Grantee agrees to reimburse Grantor for additional reasonable costs in processing and analyzing the application up a maximum reimbursement of $5,000. If the Grantor's actual costs in processing and analyzing the application are less than the amount of the deposit, any remaining funds from the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant within sixty (60) days after final approval or denial of their application. Grantee's reimbursement of costs and expenses will be made not later than 30 days after receipt from Grantor of an itemized statement setting forth those costs and expenses. (d) Any application processing or analysis costs are exclusive of Grantee's obligation to pay other costs and fees required by this chapter, the franchise agreement or the franchise, including without limitation construction inspection fees, permit fees, and franchise fees. (e) The requirements ofthis Subsection 13.1 do not apply to the restructuring of debt or to the transfer of ownership interests between existing equity owners of any of the entities identified in the attached Exhibit B; provided, however, that the Grantee must provide to Grantor not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of that proposed transaction and must represent that such transaction will have no foreseeable effect on the management and operation of the Grantee's Cable System in the designated service area. In addition, the requirements of this Subsection 13.1 shall not apply to transfers that occur purely as a result of Grantee's reorganization under Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and that are approved by the Bankruptcy Court. 13.2. Force Majeure. (a) If Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions, obligations, or requirements of this Agreement is prevented or impaired by any cause or event beyond its reasonable control and not reasonably foreseeable, that inability to perform will be deemed to be excused, and no penalties or sanctions will be imposed. Those causes beyond Grantee's reasonable control and not reasonably foreseeable include, but are not limited to, acts of God, civil emergencies, labor unrest, strikes, inability to obtain access to an individual's property, and inability of the Grantee to secure all necessary authorizations or permits to use necessary poles or conduits so long as Grantee exercises due diligence to obtain those authorizations or permits in a timely manner. 34 (b) Where any cause or event is beyond Grantee's reasonable control and is not reasonably foreseeable, and that cause or event only partially affects Grantee's ability to perform, Grantee must perform to the maximum extent possible. In that event, Grantee must give written notice to the Grantor of any such cause or event within ten (10) business days after Grantee has learned or should have learned of its occurrence. (c) Except as may be otherwise provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, Grantee's compliance with the terms, conditions, obligations, and requirements of this Agreement will not be excused on the basis of increases in the cost of performance, changes in economic circumstances, or nonperformance by an employee, agent, or contractor of the Grantee. 13.3. Possessory Interest. By accepting this Agreement, Grantee acknowledges notice was given to Grantee, as required by California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6, that use or occupancy of any public property under the authority set forth in this Agreement may create a possessory interest that may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied upon that interest. 13.4. Indemnification. Except to the extent that they result from the intentional or gross negligent conduct of Grantor, or Grantor's agents, representatives, or employees, Grantee will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Grantor, its officers, agents and employees, from any liability, claims, damages, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or attributable to the exercise or enjoyment of the fights granted by this Agreement. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, and upon demand of Grantor, will appear in and defend all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, legislative or otherwise, instituted by third persons or duly constituted authorities, against or affecting Grantor, its officers, agents, or employees, and arising out of or pertaining to the exercise of fights conferred by this Agreement within the designated service area, and injury to persons or damages to property proximately caused by any conduct undertaken by the Grantee, its agents, employees, or subcontractors, by reason of the Agreement. 13.5. Bankruptcy of Grantee. Grantee acknowledges that Grantor has the right to fully avail itself of any rights it may have under the Bankruptcy Code. Grantor does not waive any of those fights by entering into this agreement with Grantee. 13.6. Conflict of Interest. The parties agree that, to their knowledge, no member of the City Council, nor any other officer or employee of Grantor, has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise in this Agreement, or in other business of the Grantee, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of that information will be made in writing to the other party, even if that interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under applicable laws. Grantee covenants that it has, at the time of execution of this Agreement, no interest, and that it will not acquire any interest in the future, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Grantee further covenants that, in the performance of its obligations, no person having any such interest will be engaged or employed. 35 13.7. Resolution of Disputes. (a) Disputes regarding the interpretation or application of any provisions of this Agreement will, to the extent reasonably feasible, be resolved through good faith negotiations between the parties. (b) If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret any provisions of this Agreement, that action must be initiated in the state courts located within Mendocino County, State of California or in the federal courts located in the Northern District of California, regardless of any other possible jurisdiction or venue. In addition, the prevailing party in any such action is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and necessary disbursements, in addition to any other relief that may be sought and awarded. 13.8. Waiver by Grantor. The Grantor has the right to waive any provisions of this Agreement that apply to the Grantee's obligations, except those required by federal or state laws or regulations, if the Grantor determines (i) that it is in the public interest to do so, and (ii) that the enforcement of such provision will impose an undue hardship on the Grantee or its subscribers. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Grantor. 13.9. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected unless their enforcement under the circumstances would be unreasonable, inequitable, or would otherwise frustrate the purposes of this Agreement. 13.10. Amendments. This Agreement supersedes all prior proposals, agreements and understandings between the parties and may not be modified or terminated orally. No modification, termination or attempted waiver of any of its provisions will be binding unless in writing and signed by the party against whom the same is sought to be enforced. 13.11. Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of each of the parties and to their respective transferees, successors and assigns. 13.12. Counterpart Execution. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which constitute one and the same instrument. 13.13. Applicable Law. This Agreement and the transactions contemplated by it are to be construed in accordance with and governed by the applicable laws of the State of California and of the United States. 36 14. DEFINITIONS a. Defined Terms. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations have the meanings set forth below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, and words in the singular number include the plural number. "Affiliate" has the same meaning as is set forth in 47 C.F.R. §76.100(g), which is a part of the FCC regulations relating to Cable Systems. "Basic Service" or "Basic Cable Service" or "Basic Service Tier" means the lowest service tier that includes the retransmission of local television broadcast signals, including those of public, educational, and governmental access channels "1984 Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. "1992 Cable Act" means the Cable System Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. "Cable Act" means the 1984 Cable Act as amended by the 1992 Cable Act and by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "Cable Service" means the one-way transmission to subscribers of video programming, or other programming services, and subscriber interaction, if any, that is required for the selection or use of that video programming or other progranuning service. For the purposes of this definition, "video programming" means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station; and "other programming service" means information that a cable system operator makes available to all subscribers generally. "Cable System" means a facility consisting of a set of transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide cable service, which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within the community, provided that the FCC has certified that such system complies with its regulations as set forth in 47 C.F.R. {}76.1500 et seq. "Cable System Operator" or "CATV Operator" means any person or group of persons who provides cable service over a Cable System and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in that Cable System, or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of that Cable System. "Communi _ty Channel" means any channel that is set aside for use by the Grantor, or by Grantor-authorized organizations or groups that are based in the designated service area or that are sponsored or funded by the Grantor, for the purpose of cablecasting 37 noncommercial programming that is determined by the Grantor to be of community-wide interest. "Complaint" means a billing dispute in which a subscriber notifies Grantee of an outage or degradation in picture quality that is not corrected following the initial telephone or service call, as well as any other communication from a subscriber that relates to the operation of the Cable System, whether or not it involves a billing dispute. "Control" or "Controlling Interest" means actual working control in whatever manner exercised, including, without limitation, working control through ownership, management, or debt instruments, as the case may be, of the Cable System of the Grantee. "Designated Service Area" or "Service Area" means that territory within the County of Mendocino that is specifically described in the Agreement. "Drop" means the cable and related equipment connecting the Cable System's plant to equipment at the premises of a subscriber or the facilities of the Grantor. "Education Channel" means any channel where nonprofit educational institutions are the primary designated programmers. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or its designated representatives. "Franchise" means a written undertaking of the Grantor that authorizes the incumbent Cable System operator to use the Grantor's streets and public ways for the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a Cable System to provide cable service. "Government Channel" means any channel where a local government agency is the primary designated programmer, and the programming is informational programming regarding government activities and services. "Grantee" means Century Mendocino Cable Television, Inc. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, and the lawful successors, transferees, or assignees of that entity. "Grantor" means the City of Ukiah, acting by and through its elected governing body, or such representative as the governing body may designate to act on cable matters in its behalf. "Gross Annual Revenue" means all revenue and other consideration of any kind, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, that is received by Grantee or its affiliates from the provision of cable service over the Cable System within the designated service area. Such revenue and other consideration include, without limitation, the following: 38 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Fees received from residential and commercial subscribers to any tier of Cable Service and for all video programming services. Fees received for installation, reconnection, downgrade, upgrade, and similar services. Late fees and interest collected on delinquent subscriber fees or charges. Fees paid for channels that are designated for commercial use. Fees paid in connection with the rental, lease, or sale of converters, remote controls, and other equipment. Leased or access channel revenues received in connection with the distribution of any Cable Service. All bad debts that are recovered. All revenue that is received by Grantee, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, from the conduct of any service-related activity directly involving the video portion of the Cable System, including without limitation revenues derived from advertising sales, the sale of products or services on home shopping channels, and the sale of program guides. The fair market value of any nonmonetary consideration received by Grantee in any transaction with another person, such as a barter transaction, but not less than the customary prices paid in connection with equivalent transactions. All carriage revenues received from unaffiliated video programming providers. (xi) A franchise fee if itemized and added to the bill. The term "gross annual revenue" does not include the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Refundable deposits, rebates, or credits. Bad debt that is unrecovered or unrecoverable. Taxes imposed by law on subscribers that Grantee is obligated to collect on behalf of any governmental agency. Revenues collected by unaffiliated video programming providers. PEG fees paid to the City per subscriber as a part of this agreement. 39 (vi) Advertising commissions paid to advertisers provided they are not wholly owned subsidiaries of Grantee. (vii) Programming Launch Fees and Marketing Support where eligible fees include instances where Grantee has been reimbursed for the Marketing costs associated with the launch and promotion of services offered. This is not meant to include incentive fees for carriage, contra expense, barters, or other instances where GAAP would require treatment as revenue. "Headend" means that central portion of the Cable System where signals are introduced into and received from the balance of the system. "Hub" means a secondary signal processing location where the signals generated at the primary headend are combined with locally-generated signals for distribution to subscribers in the community. "Incumbent Cable System Operator" means any person who, in accordance with a franchise authorized by the Grantor, is providing cable service over a cable system. "Monitoring" or "Tapping" means observing or receiving a signal, where the observer is neither the sending nor receiving party and is not authorized by the sending or receiving party to observe that signal, whether the signal is observed or received by visual, electronic, or any other means. "Node" means a location in a hybrid fiber optic/coaxial cable system where light signals are converted into electrical signals in the downstream direction, and electrical signals are converted into light signals in the upstream direction. "Pay Cable," "Pay Service," "Premium Service" or "Pay Television" means signals for which there is a fee or charge to users over and above the charge for basic service, including any tiers of service; provided, however, the sale or lease of studio facilities, equipment, or tapes to local users are not deemed to be pay or premium services. "PEG Access Channels" means the channels that have been reserved by the incumbent Cable System operator for public, educational, or governmental use. "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, or organization authorized to do business in the State of California. "Plant" means the transmitting medium and related equipment that transmits signals between the headend and subscribers, excluding drops. 40 "Pole Attachment Agreement" or "Attachment Agreement" means any agreement with the Grantor, with any other governmental entity, or with any public utility relating to the Grantee's use of utility poles, ducts, or conduits. "Program" or "Programming" means the information content of a signal and the act or process of creating that content, whether that content is intended to be pictures and sound, sound only, or any other form of information. "Programmer" means any person who provides program material or information for transmission by means of a Cable System. "Property_ of Grantee" means all property owned or leased by Grantee within the designated service area in the conduct of its Cable System business under an agreement. "Public Channel," or "Public Access Channel," means any channel for which members of the public or community organizations may provide non-advertiser supported programming. "Regional Cluster" means the separate franchises serving Grantor, the County of Mendocino and the cities of Fort Bragg and Willits. "Residential Dwelling Unit" or "Dwelling Unit" means a home, mobile home, condominium, apartment, cooperative unit, and any other individual dwelling unit. "Service Tier" or "Tier" means a category of cable service or other services provided by the CATV operator and for which a separate rate is charged by the CATV operator, other than per-channel or per-event programming or packages of per-channel or per-event programming. "Shared Channel" means any channel carrying video programming that is selected by more than one video programming provider and is offered to subscribers. "Streets" means the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public way or right-of-way of any type. "Subscriber" means any person electing to subscribe to, for any purpose, a service provided by Grantee by means of or in connection with its Cable System. "Video Programming Provider" means any person or group of persons who has the right under the copyright laws to select and to contract for the carriage of specific video programming on a Cable System. b. Terms Not Defined. Words, terms, or phrases not defined above in paragraph (a) shall first have the meaning as defined in the Cable Act, and next in Section 1.11.2, and next the special meanings attributable to their use in any industry, business, trade, or 41 profession where they commonly carry special meanings. If those special meanings are not common, they will be defined as set forth in commonly used and accepted dictionaries of the English language. 15. AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 15.1. Authori _ty. The persons signing below represent that they have the requisite authority to bind the entities on whose behalf they are signing. 15.2. Effective Date This Agreement will become effective as of , the date the Resolution is adopted. It is the intention of the parties that the Grantee will first execute this Agreement and then submit it to the Grantor. The City Clerk will insert the Effective Date in all counterparts of this Agreement, attest to their execution by a duly authorized officer of the Grantor, and transmit one or more fully executed counterparts to the Grantee. TO EFFECTUATE THIS AGREEMENT, each of the parties has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the date set forth below the authorized signature. CITY OF UKIAH By: Date: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey CENTURY MENDOCINO CABLE TELEVISION, INC., a Delaware corporation By: Title: Date: 42 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Corporate Counsel 43 EXHIBIT A SECTION 1.11.2 OF THE CITY OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE AS ADOPTED AND IN EFFECT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT Subject to modifications contained within this agreement and/or additional standards established herein, the following sections of Section 1.11.2 of the Ukiah Municipal Code shall not apply to this Agreement: Section 1.11.2.1878 Transfers and Assignments Section 1.11.2.1884 Franchise Application Processing Costs A-1 EXHIBIT B COMMON OWNERSHIP ACC Cable Communications FL-VA, LLC ACC Cable Holdings VA, Inc. ACC Holdings II, LLC ACC Investment Holdings, Inc. ACC Operations, Inc. ACC Telecommunications Holdings, LLC ACC Telecommunications, LLC ACC Telecommunications of Virginia, LLC ACC-AMN Holdings, LLC Adelphia Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc. Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Cablevision Arizona, Inc. Blairsville, LLC Cable Partners, LP Cablevision Associates, LP Corp. of Boca Raton, LLC of Fontana, LLC of Inland Empire, LLC of New York, Inc. of Newport Beach, LLC of Orange County II, LLC of Orange County, LLC of San Bemardino, LLC of Santa Ana, LLC of Seal Beach, LLC of Simi Valley, LLC of the Kennebunks, LLC of West Palm Beach III, LLC of West Palm Beach IV, LLC Cablevision of West Palm Beach V, LLC Cablevision, LLC California Cablevision, LLC Central Pennsylvania, LLC Cleveland, LLC Communications Corporation Communications International, Inc. Communications of California II, LLC Communications of California III, LLC Communications of California, LLC Company of Western Connecticut B-I Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia Adelphia General Holdings III, Inc. GP Holdings, LLC GS Cable, LLC Harbor Center Holdings, LLC Holdings 2001, LLC Imemational II, LLC International III, LLC Mobile Phones, Inc. of the Midwest, Inc. Pinellas County, LLC Prestige Cablevision, LLC Telecommunications of Florida, Inc. Telecommunications, Inc. Wellsville, LLC Adelphia Western New York Holdings, LLC Arahova Communications, Inc. Arahova Holdings, LLC Badger Holding Corporation Better TV, Inc. of Bennington Blacksburg/Salem Cablevision, Inc. Brazas Communications, Inc. Buenavision Telecommunications, Inc. Cable Sentry Corporation California Ad Sales, LLC CCC-III, Inc. CCC-Indiana, Inc. CCH Indiana, LP CDA Cable, Inc. Century Advertising, Inc. Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Alabama Corp. Alabama Holding Corp. Australia Communications Corp. Berkshire Cable Corp. Cable Holding Corp. Cable Holdings, LLC Cable Management Corporation Cable of Southern California Cablevision Holdings, LLC Carolina Corp. Colorado Springs Corp. Colorado Springs Partnership Cullman Corp. Enterprise Cable Corp. Exchange, LLC B-2 Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Century Federal, Inc. Granite Cable Television Corp. Huntington Company Indiana Corp. Investment Holding Corp. Investors, Inc. Island Associates, Inc. Island Cable Television Corp. Kansas Cable Television Corp. Lykens Cable Corp. Mendocino Cable Television Inc. Mississippi Corp. Mountain Corp. New Mexico Cable Television Norwich Corp. Ohio Cable Television Corp. Oregon Cable Corp. Pacific Cable TV Inc. Programming, Inc. Realty Corp. Shasta Cable Television Corp. Southwest Colorado Cable Television Corp. Telecommunications, Inc. Trinidad Cable Television Corp. Virginia Corp. Voice and Data Communications, Inc. Warrick Cable Corp. Washington Cable Television, Inc. Century Wyoming Cable Television Corp. Century-ML Cable Corporation Century-ML Cable Venture Century-TCI California Communications, LP Century-TCI California, LP Century-TCI Holdings, LLC Chelsea Communications, Inc. Chelsea Communications, LLC Chestnut Street Services, LLC Clear Cablevision, Inc. CMA Cablevision Associates VII, LP CMA Cablevision Associates XI, LP Coral Security, Inc. Cowlitz Cablevision, Inc. CP-MDU I LLC CP-MDU II LLC B-3 E. & E. Cable Service, Inc. Eastern Virginia Cablevision Holdings, LLC Eastern Virginia Cablevision, LP Empire Sports Network, LP FAE Cable Management Corp. FOP Indiana, LP FrontierVision Access Partners, LLC FrontierVision Cable New England, Inc. FrontierVision Capital Corporation FrontierVision Holdings Capital Corporation FrontierVision Holdings Capital II Corporation FrontierVision Holdings, LLC FrontierVision Holdings, LP FrontierVision Operating Partners, LLC FrontierVision Operating Partners, LP FrontierVision Partners, LP Ft. Myers Acquisition Limited Partnership Ft. Myers Cablevision, LLC Genesis Cable Communications Subsidiary, Global Acquisition Partners, LP Global Cablevision II, LLC Grafton Cable Company GS Cable, LLC GS Telecommunications, LLC Harron Cablevision of New Hampshire, Inc. Huntington CATV, Inc. Imperial Valley Cablevision, Inc. Kalamazoo County Cablevision, Inc. Key Biscayne Cablevision Kootenai Cable, Inc. Lake Champlain Cable Television Corporation Leadership Acquisition Limited Partnership Louisa Cablevision, Inc. Manchester Cablevision, Inc. Martha's Vineyard Cablevision, LP Mercury Communications, Inc. Mickelson Media of Florida, Inc. Mickelson Media, Inc. Montgomery Cablevision, Inc. Monument Colorado Cablevision, Inc. Mountain Cable Communications Corporation Mountain Cable Company, LP Mt. Lebanon Cablevision, Inc. Multi-Channel TV Cable Company LLC B-4 National Cable Acquisition Associates, LP Olympus Cable Holdings, LLC Olympus Capital Corporation Olympus Communications Holdings, LLC Olympus Communications, LP Olympus Subsidiary, LLC Owensboro Indiana, LP Owensboro on the Air, Inc. Owensboro-Brunswick, Inc. Page Time, Inc. Palm Beach Group Cable Joint Venture Palm Beach Group Cable, Inc. Paragon Cable Television, Inc. Paragon Cablevision Construction Corporation Paragon Cablevision Management Corporation Pamassos Communications, LP Parnassos Holdings, LLC Pamassos, LP Pericles Communications Corporation Pullman TV Cable Co., Inc. RentaVision of Brunswick, Inc. Richmond Cable Television Corporation Rigpal Communications, Inc. Robinson/Plum Cablevision, LP S/T Cable Corporation Sabres, Inc. Scranton Cablevision, Inc. Sentinel Communications of Muncie, Indiana, Inc. Southeast Florida Cable, Inc. Southwest Colorado Cable, Inc. Southwest Virginia Cable, Inc. Star Cable Inc. Starpoint Limited Partnership SVHH Cable Acquisition, LP SVHH Holdings, LLC Tele-Media Company of Hopewell-Prince George Tele-Media Company of Tri-States, LP Tele-Media Investment Parmership, LP Telesat Acquisition Limited Partnership Telesat Acquisition, LLC The Golf Club at Wending Creek Farms, LLC The Main InternetWorks, Inc. The Westover TV Cable Co. Incorporated Three Rivers Cable Associates, LP B-5 Timotheos Communications, LP TMC Holdings Corporation TMC Holdings, LLC Tri-States, LLC UCA, LLC Upper St. Clair Cablevision, Inc. US Tele-Media Investment Company Valley Video, Inc. Van Buren County Cablevision, Inc. Warrick Cablevision, Inc. Warrick Indiana, LP Wellsville Cablevision, LLC West Boca Acquisition Limited Partnership Western NY Cablevision, LP Westview Security, Inc. Wilderness Cable Company Young's Cable TV Corp Yuma Cablevision, Inc. B-6 EXHIBIT C MENDOCINO COUNTY CHANNEL CAPACITY/SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Century Mendocino Cable Television, Inc. operates a state-of-the-art broadband network designed to meet the telecommunications needs of City of Ukiah and Mendocino County residents for the foreseeable future. Following is a general description to the system, though it is understood that some technical specifications may change throughout the course of the franchise. The 860 MHz hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) network encompasses 436.08 miles of plant of which 337.38 are overhead and 98.7 are underground. The system extends fiber optics lines from the system headend to nodes throughout the County. At each node, the signals enter our coaxial network for transmission to the home. The system is capable of providing hundreds of channels using both analog and digital formats. Each analog video channel requires 6 MHz, however using digital compression Adelphia can provide 10-14 Digital Cable channels in 6MHz spectrum. The HFC system is two-way capable allowing for high-speed Intemet service and "impulse" ordering of pay per view services. It is built, able to accommodate future services including telephony and video-on-demand. High-speed data (HSD) services use the "DOCSIS" industry standard, enabling customers to purchase any DOCSIS compatible cable modem. In addition, if a customer were to move they would be able to use the same modem in their new location, provided the cable system uses the DOCSIS standard. The City of Ukiah and Mendocino County system is built using a "node plus two" architecture, which is the standard for Adelphia Communications. This type of network design limits the number of amplifiers located between the fiber node and a customer's home. The benefit of this type of architecture is the placement of fiber optic cable deeper into the system, resulting in fewer homes per node and greater capacity to meet the individual needs of customers. Each node is designed to serve approximately 125-150 homes. All nodes have standby power capability for use during commercial power interruptions. The headend has standby power capable of providing twenty four (24) hours of power during any periods of commercial power interruptions. The system forward bandwidth is 54 to 862 MHz. The reverse bandwidth is 5 to 40 MHz. c-I EXHIBIT D CABLE SYSTEM SERVICES FOR PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Grantee agrees to provide basic cable service to the following locations: Location Address Status Remarks Fort Bragg Town Hall 363 North Main Street Existing Fort Bragg PD 250 Cypress Street Existing Fort Bragg City Hall 416 North Franklin Existing MCCET Studio at Ft. Bragg High School 300 Dana Existing Fort Bragg Fire Dept 141 North Main Street Existing Fort Bragg Library 499 East Laurel New Mendocino High School (2 ROP Buildings & Performing Arts Building) 10700 Ford Existing Mendocino Performing Arts Existing Mendocino Coast District Hospital 700 River Drive Existing Mendocino Recreation Center School St (Mendocino) New Caspar Community Center 14990 Caspar Road New * See note below Detrich Education Center 208 Dana St. Existing College of the Redwoods 1211 De Mar Dr. Existing Comer of Lincoln and Not yet constructed, MCRPD Aquatic Center Willow Streets New future activation 111 and 125 East Willits City Hall and Commercial Justice Center (contiguous buildings) Existing Willits Community Television 85 East Commercial Existing Willits HS 299N. Main St. Existing 400 East Commercial Willits Museum St. New *See note below Ukiah City Hall and annex 300 Seminary Avenue Existing Ukiah HS 1000 Low Gap Road Existing School District to provide necessary conduit, Adelphia New Grace Hudson 1600 South State responsible for Campus New additional costs. Mendocino County Office 2240 Eastside Road of Ed. Talmage Existing Mendocino Community 1000 Hensley Creek New D-1 College (Ukiah) Rd. County Supervisor 501 Low Gap Rd, Chambers Ukiah Existing County Administrative Center, Office of Emergency Services 175 S. School Existing 30400 Albion Ridge Albion School Rd. New *See note below College of the Redwoods 1211 Del Mar Dr. New *See note below Ukiah Conference Center 200 S. School New *See note below Mendocino Community College (Willits) 11 Main Street New *See note below *Note: If a location noted above requires no more than a standard 150-foot aerial drop line from the main feeder line, Adelphia shall pay the entire cost of construction necessary to connect that location to Adelphia's Cable System. If a location noted above requires more than a standard 150-foot aerial drop line from the main feeder line, then Adelphia agrees to assume the first $2500 worth of construction costs related to connecting that location to Adelphia's Cable System. Any costs over and above the $2500 limit per location shall be the responsibility of the particular location. With respect to locations requiring more than a standard 150-aerial drop line from the main feeder line, Adelphia shall not be required to provide basic cable service to any location that will not agree to assume construction costs over and above the $2500 limit. D-2 EXHIBIT E SUPPORT OF LOCAL CABLE USAGE PEG ACCESS CHANNELS. A. Channel Capaci _ty and Use. 1. Within six (6) months following the effective date of this Agreement, Grantee will make available to Grantor three analog channels for exclusive use by Grantor in support of community television (PEG), of which one is currently channel 3. 2. Use of the PEG access channels will be under the exclusive control of the Grantor, or its designee and subject to such rules and regulations as the Grantor may establish in accordance with federal law. In this regard, Grantor reserves the right to delegate the operation and management of any current or future PEG access channel to such individuals or entities as it may select, all of whom must comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the operations of that channel. 3. All PEG access channels will be positioned on the lowest priced basic service tiers and will be fully accessible to subscribers, consistent with FCC regulations. Within ninety days of the activation of the second channel, Grantor agrees to locate all three channels in sequential order within the channel line-up. 4. Grantee will not change the positioning of Grantor's PEG access channels without ninety (90) days prior written notice to Grantor, where such change is within the Grantee's control. Where such change is not within the Grantee's control, Grantee will give Grantor as much prior written notice as is reasonably possible. Grantee must reimburse Grantor for all costs (up to a total of $3,000.00 each) reasonably incurred as a consequence of any such change in channel position, including costs of notices to subscribers and modifications to descriptive literature. 5. Grantee will ensure that the signal quality for all PEG access channel cablecasting complies with all applicable FCC technical standards. Failure to comply to these standards will result in liquidated damages pursuant to Subsection 11.4(b)(2). 6. Upon Grantor's request, but no more than once per year, Grantee will disseminate to subscribers information related to PEG access programming on Grantee's electronic program guide channel. In addition, Grantee will, upon request of Grantor, disseminate such information as an insert in subscriber bills once annually. The costs related to the dissemination of this information shall be borne by the Grantee. E-1 7. Except to the extent authorized by federal law, Grantee will not exercise any editorial control over the public, educational, or governmental use of channel capacity that is made available to Grantor under the provisions of this Exhibit D and E. 8. Grantee is responsible for the maintenance of the retum fibers and reverse feeds associated with any distribution plant that is used for the transmission of PEG access programming between PEG studio facilities and Grantee's headends, or between Grantee's headend and the County's IS Department below (as described in Section E subsections 4 to 8 below). All costs associated with the maintenance of Grantee's fiber, coax distribution network and hardware, network management, and maintenance will be the Grantee's responsibility. 9. Grantee is not responsible for any costs, in excess of those costs outlined in this agreement, associated with the maintenance of Grantor's PEG equipment or operations. B. Restrictions. 1. Grantor agrees not to use its designated public, educational, or governmental access channels to provide commercial services that may compete directly with services provided by Grantee. C. Digital PEG Access Channels. 1. The parties acknowledge that Grantee may in the future use video compression technology in order to transmit PEG access video programming in a digital format to subscribers. Until such time as Grantee has converted all analog video programming to digital, consistent with federal law, Grantee must make PEG access channels available to both its analog and digital customers. 2. When Grantee has converted all video programming, both commercial and non-commercial, from analog to digital, then Grantee shall provide Grantor one (1) additional channel for PEG access programming (for a total of four (4) channels). D. Use of Fallow PEG Channels. 1. Grantee agrees not to request use of the two of the three initial channels described in subsection A. 1. However, if the third or subsequent access channel becomes programmed for less than four (4) hours per day for six (6) days per week for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) consecutive weeks, the City may permit the Grantee to utilize unused channel capacity on that channel under the following conditions: 2. Any request from the Grantee to use any fallow capacity designated for PEG Access must be submitted in writing to the City Council at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to desired utilization date. E-2 3. The City Council shall approve the petition from the Grantee to use fallow channel capacity if it finds that: (i) the utilization of the channel is as represented; (ii) the Grantee has not acted in violation of any of the provisions of the Franchise regarding utilization of the channel. After approval, the Grantee may continue to utilize the channel for any other purposes it so chooses, consistent with the Franchise, until it is required to be designated for PEG purposes pursuant to the provisions hereof; and (iii) rules are pre-scribed by the City in determining the rules the Grantee must follow in returning to the City channels loaned to the Grantee under this section. 4. City agrees to give Grantee one hundred twenty (120) days notice when requesting that a channel be returned. E. Definitions. meanings: For the purpose of this section, the following terms have the following a) Locally Produced means programming produced in either County of Mendocino or in any incorporated area that is shared between participating PEG organizations with the County. b) Original Programming means programming in its initial, first or second repeat cablecast on the cable system. c) Locally Scheduled means that the scheduling, selection, or playback of original programming on a per-program basis is determined in consultation with, or in accordance with the operating procedures of, the designated access provider or, with respect to programming received from an interconnection, the provider transmitting the programming over the interconnection. Carriage on any public access channel of all or a substantial portion of any non-local programming that duplicates programming carded by Grantee as a part of its basic or expanded basic cable services will not be considered to be Locally Scheduled. F. Live Cablecasting Capabilities. 1. Grantee will provide fiber and/or coaxial return capability for live origination of community programming from the following buildings: E-3 Location Status Remarks Fort Bragg Town Hall Existing Fort Bragg PD New *See note below Fort Bragg City Hall Existing Fort Bragg HS Existing Not yet constructed, future MCRPD Aquatic Center N/A activation Mendocino HS Existing Caspar Community Center New *See note below Mendocino Coast District HospitalN/A *See note below Detrich Education Center Existing !Mendocino Recreation Center N/A * See note below Existing, but may require activation of additional College of the Redwoods Existing buildings · See note below Willits City Hall Existing Willits Community Television Existing Ukiah City Hall Existing Mendocino Community College Existing (Ukiah) County Supervisor Chambers New County Office of Emergency Services Existing Mendocino Community College New *See note below (Willits) Willits High School New *See note below Ukiah Conference Center New * See note below Grace Hudson Campus New *See note below *Note: With respect to the locations noted above, Adelphia agrees to assume the first $2500 worth of construction costs related to providing each of these locations with fiber and/or coaxial return capability for live origination of community programming. Any costs over and above the $2500 limit per location shall be the responsibility of the particular location. Adelphia shall not be required to provide fiber or coaxial return capability for live origination of community programming to any location that will not agree to assume construction costs over and above the $2500 limit. E-4 2. If not already provided, Grantee agrees, within six (6) months of receiving a request from the County, to connect the PEG studio identified by the County to the headend located within the designated PEG studio's service area via dedicated fiber. County agrees to consult with Adelphia during the selection process of any future PEG studio locations in an effort to minimize construction costs associated with connecting future PEG studio(s) to the appropriate headend via fiber. 3. Grantee agrees within six months of the effective date of the Franchise Agreement to provide necessary fiber transmission equipment to provide video and audio signals directly from the County's Information Services (IS) on South School St. to Grantee's headend for originating local programming onto the Ukiah and surrounding Ukiah County area. The County's IS Department will serve as the central control center for all three Ukiah Valley PEG channels. 4. In the event that Grantee ever interconnects the headends located in the areas of Fort Bragg, Ukiah and Willits via fiber or some alternative method (e.g. over the air frequency), Grantee agrees to also interconnect the PEG facilities serving the County, Fort Bragg, Ukiah and Willits. 5. Within twenty-four (24) months of the effective date of this agreement, Grantee agrees to provide and maintain equipment necessary to transmit live origination of community programming (i.e. modulators, lasers, etc.) at each live cablecasting location identified in section F(1) of Exhibit F. In addition, Grantee agrees to provide and maintain equipment at its headend necessary to receive (and retransmit over its Cable System) live origination of community programming (i.e. demodulators, receivers, etc.) Grantor agrees to reimburse Grantee for any loss of said equipment due to Grantor's negligence. The equipment required to be maintained and provided by Grantee under this section shall not be taken into account when calculating the $2500 construction limit described above in Section F. 6. Grantee agrees to maintain for the term of this Franchise Agreement these dedicated return lines for the purpose of connecting the aforementioned live origination locations with the company's related headends. 7. Grantee also agrees to assist the respective IT or IS staff of Grantor for the purpose of coordinating interconnecting PEG facilities to existing facilities of the Grantor's networks or those of the Grantee that are being provided under separate fiber lease agreements. G. Grants for PEG Access Production and Programming Equipment. 1. Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Agreement, Grantee will pay to Grantor a capital grant in the amount of $200,000 prorated on a per subscriber basis among the County of Mendocino and the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah and Willits. Within sixty (60) days after the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Grantee will pay to Grantor capital grants in the amount of $200,000 respectively prorated on a per subscriber basis among the County of Mendocino and the Cities of E-5 Fort Bragg, Ukiah and Willits. 2. Grantee will pay an additional grant to Grantor during years 10 to 15 of this Agreement in the amount of $0.25 (as adjusted by the increase in the applicable Consumer Price Index for Mendocino County from the Effective Date of this Agreement) per subscriber per month for every subscriber of record in the entire Mendocino County service area (including the incorporated cities) that exceed the number of subscribers existing on the January 1, 2004 (14,264 subscribers countywide, number includes equivalent basic units), prorated on a per subscriber basis among the County of Mendocino and the Cities of Fort Bragg, Ukiah and Willits. Payments of these additional grants will occur quarterly consistent with the scheduling of franchise fee payments. II. PROGRAMMING OPERATIONS FUNDRAISING BILL STUFFERS. A. Upon Grantor's request, Grantee will insert once a year at a mutually agreed upon time a bill insert consisting of a pledge card that seeks pledges of money in support of PEG programming. The pledge form shall be approved by Grantor and shall direct that the form be returned to Grantor or the PEG organization designated by Grantor. The pledge form must allow subscribers to designate a method of donation such as by check, automatic bank charges, debit card or credit card. All costs related to printing and mailing of the bill insert to the subscriber will be borne by Grantee. In addition, Grantee will run spot ads promoting this PEG fundraising effort on all the cable channels it normally runs local advertisements at the time the pledge cards are sent to subscribers. Said spot ads will run at least 14 consecutive days coinciding with the mailing, with no less than 500, 30 second spots, mn hourly between the hours of 6am and 1 Opm. Grantor will produce and provide the copy of the spot ad, but all other costs of airing these ads shall be borne by Grantee. The spot ad should indicate that it is a public service announcement from Adelphia. III. OPTIONAL ANNUAL PEG OPERATIONS PAYMENT. A. Upon the written request of Grantor, Grantee will allocate a sum of money designated by Grantor to be paid annually (but not to exceed the 5% franchise fee) for the operation of the PEG channels. Such amount shall be paid at the time the franchise fees are paid by Grantee for the first quarter of each year of the Franchise Term. Grantor agrees that Grantee may deduct this payment from the franchise fees due. E-6 EXHIBIT F GRANTOR'S UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS I. INSTALLATIONS IN PARKWAYS. A. All conduit installations in parkways must have a minimum cover of eighteen (18) inches below the finish grade. B. All existing improvements in parkways, including landscaping and sprinklers, must be protected from damage, or, if damaged, restored to pre-construction conditions. All repairs and replacements must be made in-kind. C. All service boxes and vaults must be set to finish grade on six (6) inches of one- inch crushed rock. D. No access to new service boxes or vaults may be located within the sidewalk, wheelchair ramps, or drive apron areas unless authorized by the City Engineer. II. INSTALLATIONS IN ROADWAYS A. Conduit may be installed at locations shown on plans submitted by Grantee after approval by the City Engineer. If a location is available, the preferred alignment is two feet from the outer edge of an existing gutter. Where it cannot be located on the preferred alignment, the location must be approved by the City Engineer. Removal and replacement of all damaged pavement between the trench and the edge of existing roadway pavement is required on all streets. The edge of the trench must be a minimum of one foot from the edge of the gutter. Exceptions to this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer. B. Concrete pavement serving as bus pads, spandrels, cross gutters, or local depressions may not be cut. At these locations, the conduit must be bored or jacked. C. It is mandatory to maintain a straight alignment. Routing of conduit at bus pads, and any other protrusions beyond the gutter edge, must be approved by the City Engineer. Some installations may require locations in the parkway. Locations directly above or in conflict with existing utilities are not permitted, unless approved by an agreement with the affected utility. D. Open-cut transverse trenches are not allowed within streets, except at intersections, unless otherwise provided. To serve customers on the other side of a street, a parallel line on the opposite side of the street must be installed. An alternative to this procedure is mid-block crossings installed by jacking or boring conduit under the street. If the conduit is to be jacked under the street, Grantee must abide by the following guidelines unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer: 1. Crossings must be at least 150 feet apart. F-I 2. Jacking pits must be in the parkway adjacent to the main cable trench. . boring operations. Written approval must be obtained from the City prior to any jacking or E. Conduit must be installed at a consistent depth throughout a block with a minimum cover (below the established edge of the gutter) of thirty (30) inches in all streets and alleys. III. ABOVE-GROUND SERVICE BOXES OR VAULTS. A. Above-ground service boxes or vaults are not permitted in the public rights-of- way without prior consideration of the need, which consideration will include industry technical standards, the safety and aesthetics of the placement, and the cost of below-ground alternatives. Grantee will flush mount all facilities where current technology enables Grantee to do so. When it is not possible to underground a facility entirely, Grantee will evaluate options for placing as much of the facility below ground as possible. B. Above-ground service boxes or vaults may not be installed without the prior approval of the appropriate City department, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If existing landscaping and irrigation are disturbed during the construction process, landscaping and irrigation requirements may be imposed by the appropriate City department. Grantee will coordinate the siting and choice of pedestal materials with the appropriate City department(s) and with residents adjacent to proposed above-ground service boxes and other facilities. C. Above-ground facilities shall be constructed so as to connect and lock to some form of concrete footing, except if the above-ground facility is manufactured pre-formed vault that does not require a concrete footing. D. Grantee will minimize the negative impacts of above-ground facilities on aesthetics, public convenience, and public safety to the extent reasonably feasible, through such means as creative siting and landscaping, placement of facilities on private property, and partial undergrounding. E. Above-ground service boxes or vaults must be properly maintained for safety, public convenience, and aesthetic reasons in accordance with the following procedures: 1. Safety repairs, including graffiti removal, must be completed within 24 hours after discovery of the need for such repairs by the Grantee's personnel or notification from the City Engineer or other designated representative of the Grantor. 2. Grantee must provide routine maintenance (e.g., painting, leveling, service box replacement, fastening to base) within ten (10) working days after the discovery of the need for such maintenance by Grantee's personnel or notification from a resident, the City Engineer, or other designated representative of the Grantor. F-2 3. Grantee must replace above-ground service boxes or vaults if routine or emergency maintenance is not sufficient to return the facility to a safe and aesthetically acceptable condition as determined by the City Engineer. 4. Grantee must patrol all areas of the designated service area having above- ground service boxes or vaults on a regular basis, at intervals not in excess of three months, to inspect for damage and to determine the need for any required maintenance. F. Based on advances in technology related to pedestal housings, Grantor and Grantee will meet periodically to discuss potential locations where above-ground service boxes or vaults can be eliminated, or converted to flush-mounted enclosures, without compromising the technical operation, reliability, and economic viability of the Cable System. Grantee will place existing or proposed above-ground facilities below ground, as may be required of all other similarly-situated occupants of the Grantor's rights-of-way. IV. PERMITS A. All work within the public rights-of-way must be conducted under a permit from the Public Works Department. Grantee must comply with all City excavation policies and procedures. B. An excavation permit must be obtained for each increment of work, and inspection must be requested at least twenty four (24) hours prior to any excavation. All inspection costs will be charged directly to the Grantee. Grantor will include all inspection costs with permit fees charged to Grantee. Note: Agencies should check how this conforms to current practices. C. Detailed plans for all work must be submitted to and approved by the appropriate City department prior to issuance of any permits. Complete detailed plans shall clearly indicate the horizontal alignment of the facilities. Plans must clearly show streets, property lines, curbs, centerlines, and existing utilities. D. Above-ground power pedestals must be clearly delineated on the plans at the time they are submitted for review. Review and permitting for power pedestals will be conducted by the appropriate City department. All power pedestals and related connections must comply with the City of Ukiah Municipal Code and all other applicable laws and regulations. V. PRE-CONSTRUCTION A. A pre-job meeting must be scheduled prior to start of work at each permitted location as determined by the City Inspector. Representatives of the Grantee, including its contractors, and of the appropriate City department, must be included in these pre-job meetings. Grantee must call for inspection at least twenty four (24) hours before starting any work F-3 B. Telephonic notices must be provided to the Underground Service Alert (USA) at least two (2) working days prior to starting work on any permitted project. Grantee must have an approved permit from the appropriate City department before contacting USA. C. All utility services must be marked prior to excavation using chalk-based paint ["AERVOE" brand available from Surveyor's Services at (714) 546-0606)] with a visibility life not to exceed three (3) weeks. D. Affected residents must be notified by the Grantee in writing not less than ninety six (96) hours prior to excavation on their streets. This written notification must be approved in advance by the City Inspector. This paragraph does not apply in the case of emergencies. VI. CONSTRUCTION A. Compliance is required at all times with all provisions of the latest edition of the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH), all applicable portions of the City of Ukiah Municipal Code, and the latest edition of the "Standard Specification for Public Works Construction - Green Book," including any supplements. B. Unless otherwise approved in advance by the City Engineer, no excavations may be made by Grantee anywhere in the City between November 15 and January 3 of each year within public rights-of-way. C. Open-trench protection, and noise and dust curtailment methods, acceptable to the City Inspector, must be provided. D. Pavement cuts and restoration must conform to City of Ukiah Standard for asphalt and concrete pavement restoration. E. All trenching activity that is commenced each day in the street must be backfilled to a depth specified by the City Inspector at the end of the day; final resurfacing must be completed within five (5) working days on all streets and alleys. Final roadway clean-up must be completed within five (5) days following resurfacing. Final clean-up of vault installations and other work behind the curb must be completed within ten (10) days following roadway resurfacing. F. operations. Grantee, or its contractor, must designate a project superintendent to handle field G. If utility services must be exposed, the trench must be hand-excavated to the service line after saw-cutting pavement, or, in the alternative, a vacuum track may be used subject to approval by the appropriate authorizing department. H. Residents must be notified immediately of any damage affecting their property, and repairs must be promptly made. F-4 VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Where field conditions are such that these Underground Construction Requirements are conflicting or apparently prevent progress, all work will cease until modified specifications are approved in writing by the City Engineer. B. Grantee will participate in all meetings convened by Grantor for the purpose of identifying, scheduling, and coordinating excavation work in the public fights-of-way, provided said public fights of way are located in Grantee's existing or proposed service area. C. The security deposit referenced in Subsection 2.5(a) of the Agreement will be available during the entire period of construction to secure Grantee's obligation to correct any defective work in the public fights-of-way that is discovered. D. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Exhibit F and the provisions of the Agreement to which this Exhibit F is attached, then the provisions of this Exhibit F will have precedence and will control. F-5 Attachment # ~. BACKGROUND The Cable Act sets forth a formal renewal procedure which either the cable operator or a municipality may invoke. The formal renewal procedures do not preclude a municipality's ability to enter into informal negotiations with the cable operator to renew a franchise. Section 626 of the Cable Act provides that either the municipality or cable operator can invoke the formal renewal procedures during the six-month period which occurs 36 and 30 months prior to the scheduled expiration date of the current franchise. Upon a timely invocation of the Cable Act's formal renewal procedures, Section 626 provides for a three-stage process. The first stage consists of public proceedings which are intended (1) to identify future cable-related community needs and interests and (2) to review the cable operator's past performance. This first stage precedes the submission of a renewal proposal. The second stage involves the municipality's consideration of a specific proposal for renewal, after which it must either renew the franchise or issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed. The third stage consists of an administrative proceeding which is to be held in the event the municipality makes a preliminary assessment not to renew the cable operator's franchise. Adelphia timely invoked its right to a formal process, but has agreed to negotiate the franchise renewal informally to date. First Sta.qe In the first stage, which occurs within six months from the date of the cable operator's notice, the municipality must commence a proceeding which affords the public appropriate notice and participation for the purposes of (1) identifying the municipality's future cable-related community needs and interests (which includes those of the municipality itself); and (2) reviewing the performance of the cable operator under 'the franchise during the current franchise term. A municipality may wish__to notify various groups and organizations in the community (e.g., schools, public.access television producers, local colleges and certain business entities) of the impending proceeding. It may emphasize the role these groups and organizations can play in assisting the municipality in ascertaining the community's future needs for and interests in cable-related facilities, equipment and services, such as public, educational, governmental (PEG) access channels and institutional networks (l-Nets). The Cities of Ft. Bragg, Ukiah, Willits, along with the County worked together in retaining consulting support for conducting first stage tasks. Since 2000, MTCG staff and their consultants have performed due diligence related to the franchise agreement and studied community needs related to the cable television franchise. In March of 2003, a needs ascertainment report was presented to the City Council outlining the results of the ascertainment. In all, current and future cable television needs were considered by the following groups: · Mendocino Community College --1- · Municipal users- Cities of Ft. Bragg, Ukiah, and Wiilits · Mendocino County Department of Information Services · Mendocino County Office of Education · Mendocino Coast Community Educational Television (MCCET) · Willits Community Television · Comments from the City Attorneys and County Counsel · Comments from the respective elected officials (Council and Board of Supervisors) Second Sta.qe Upon completion of the first stage proceeding, the cable operator can submit a proposal for renewal on its own initiative or at the municipality's request. The municipality may establish a date by which the proposal muSt be submitted. The municipality can establish minimum requirements for the cable operator's renewal proposal, including requirements for the upgrade of the cable' television system. Among other things, for example, the municipality is authorized to establish minimum requirements for facilities and equipment. Similarly, the municipality is entitled to establish requirements pertaining to the set-aside of channel capacity for public, educational and govemmental use, and to establish minimum, requirements for customer service and construction-related matters. In addition, the municipality can establish requirements for a franchise fee of up to five percent (5%) of the cable operator's gross revenues. The municipality must give prompt public notice of the renewal proposal after its submittal. Within four months of the submission of the cable operator's proposed renewal franchise, the municipality must either renew the franchise or issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise is not being renewed. Note that because the municipality has the right to wait four months between the conclusion of the first stage.public proceeding and the commencement of a third-stage administrative proceeding discussed below, the municipality has the opportunity to attempt to resolve differences with the cable operator through negotiations. If the preliminary assessment of the municipality is to deny renewal, the municipality may, on its own initiative, and must, at the request of the cable operator, commence a third-stage administrative proceeding. If, however, the municipality decides to accept the cable operator's proposal, an administrative proceeding is not required. Third Stage Before commencing an administrative proceeding (because the municipality's preliminary assessment was one of denial), the municipality is required to provide the public with prompt notice of the proceeding. The cable operator must receive adequate notice of the proceeding. Further, the cable operator and the municipality or its designee are entitled to full participation in the proceeding. This includes: (1) the right to introduce evidence (including evidence related to issues raised in the first-stage proceeding); (2) the right to require the production of evidence; and (3) the right to question witnesses. The municipality may designate a hearing examiner or similar person to conduct the administrative proceeding. The scope of the third stage administrative proceeding is to consider whether: (1) The cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law;~ (2) The quality of the cable operator's service, including signal quality, response to consumers complaints,, and billing practices, but without regard to' the mix or quality of cable services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community needs; (3) The cable operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in its franchise proposal; and (4) The cable operator's proposal is reasonable to meet future cable-related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests. The outcome of the third stage is to either accept or reject the company's proposal. In order to reject a proposal, the municipality must make written findings on the permitted grounds for denying a renewal which are prescribed by federal law. If a proposal is rejected, the company is without a franchise, and litigation will like ensue. This third stage is rarely taken by local franchising authorities. Informal Negotiations/Conclusion Given the procedural requirements under Section 626 of the Cable Act, it often is preferable to enter into informal negotiations with the cable operator to develop a mutually acceptable franchise agreement. The cable operator typically is amenable to the informal negotiation route which is the case with Adelphia on the renewal here. 1 Note that the Act requires that for a denial of renewal to be based on a franchise violation that the municipality provided the cable operator with a notice of violation and opportunity to cure. MENDOCINO CABLE TELEVISION GROUP (MCTG) REVIL=W OF PUBLIC NEEDS Attachment # Since eady 2002, for the purposes of projecting current and future cable television needs, MCTG and its consultant have conducted meetings with the following groups: · Mendocino Community College · Municipal users - Cities of Ft. Bragg, Ukiah, and Willits · Mendocino County Department of Information Services · Mendocino County Office of Education · Mendocino Coast Community Educational Television (MCCET) · Willits Community Television Findings related to this effort are as follows: COMMUNITY TELEVISION ORGANIZATION NEEDS MCCET Mendocino Coast Community I=ducational Access (MCCi=T) is a Joint Powers Authority of educational and governmental agencies serving western Mendocino County specifically the Coastal area in and around the City of Fort Bragg. Members of MCCF:T are appointed by their respective agencies and serve indefinitely based on the desire of the agency. MCCET is located at Fort Bragg High School, which provides a small room for playback and editing. MCCFT is administered by its Executive Director, Charlene Aumack. MCCET produces programs on Channel 3. Students from the high school help produce some of MCCI:T's programming. MCCi:T currently televises City Council meetings, planning commission meetings, hospital board meetings, school board meetings, and Fire Authority Board meetings. Studio space is limited and additional space needs to be dedicated or another location chosen if the program is going to succeed (such as John Diedrich Building). Also, signal quality is lacking and inconsistent. MCCET's members believe that improved transmission could be achieved by activating a direct fiber feed from the school to the Adelphia headend at Bald Hill. MCCI=T would like its programming to be seen on Channel 3 in the hotels MCCET needs operating funds for staffing in the amount of $100,000 per year. Additionally, MCCET needs capital for new equipment, production control equipment in Town Hall, better studio space and improved playback and archival facilities in the following amounts: Town Hall production and audio equipment: MCCET studio at Ft. Bragg High School: Additional Improvements as a secondary phase Further improvements for playback as a third phase: $227,831 $199,485 $182,902 .~ 36,294 $646,512 Needs_Statement_MCTG_O3_24_O3.doc Communications Support Group, Inc. © 2003 Page 2 of 13 MENDOCINO CABLE TELEVISION GROUP (MCTG) REVIEW OF PUBLIC NEEDS See Attachment A for a complete composite of the equipment needs as submitted by MCCET. Also see additional discussion in the Ukiah Valley Community Television section regarding the typical components for Town Hall type facilities. WILLITS COMMUNITY TELEVISION Willits Community Television currently operates out of the former City Hall and covers the immediate Willits area. The City of Willits provides this space rent-free and utility free. The facility is run by volunteers. Willits Community Television maintains a community bulletin board, provides cable access for the Willits City Council Meetings to be cablecast live, and cablecasts tapes provided by community producers. Currently, it produces no other odginal programming, does not make its equipment available for shooting or editing, and has no studio. It has a need for: Signal Improvement, Playback, Archiving, and Logging, and Interactivity. As for operating and capital needs, Willits Community Television indicates the following needs (see Attachment B for details): New computer workstation dedicated to the Community Bulletin Board and running Infochannel software $29,200 Cameras to use in studio, switcher, sound mixer and microphones with electronic controls $35,300 Local programming portable production equipment such as Camcorders, triopods, audio $24,600 · Editing Gear $36,980 · Office equipment and $6,905 · Playback/Cablecasting equipment $9,330 Total capital costs: $142,315 As for timing of its needs, Willits Community Television has determined that it needs $40,000 upfront to get essential equipment for production and playback purchased. Willits Community Television has also estimated a need for annual operating grants of Needs_Statement_MCTG 03 24 03.doc Communications Support Group, Inc. © 2003 Page 3 of 13 MENDOCINO CABLE TELEVISION GROUP (MCTG) REVIEW OF PUBLIC NEEDS $20,000 (assumes continued rent free and utility free operation as provided by the City or College) to cover costs of labor and supplies. We believe that both the capital and operating amounts may need adjustment upwards as the operation matures, especially in the event volunteers labor diminishes and Willits decides to hire part-time labor to fulfill PEG obligations. Additionally, VVillits Community Television may consider relocation to another facility sometime in the future. Ukiah Valley Community Television, City Of Ukiah And Mendocino County The Mendocino County Department of Information Services is currently considering its role in establishing guidelines and policies for the operation of a Public Access Television for the Ukiah Valley. The concept be proposed by County Administrators is to have the entity managed by the Department of Information Services and will have a Board of directors made up of members of the community including the Public, Educational institutions and Governmental agencies. The following is an overview of identified PEG needs: Legislative Chambers Production Equipment: As both the City of Ukiah and Mendocino County operate administrative and legislative offices in the inland service area, and given that both governmental bodies have expressed a desire to have their principal meetings cablecasted, Ukiah Valley Community Television places high priodty for equipping both the City Council chambers in Ukiah's City Hall and the Board of Supervisor's chambers in the County's Administration Building with cost effective video production equipment. Facilities, similar to one needed in Fort Bragg Town Hall, are required for control of up to four cameras in each facility, digital and tape recording equipment, and graphics. We suggest a package similar to that proposed by MCCET for an integrated audio, video, and cable casting system which creates a fixed cable production unit located adjacent to the Council or Supervisor Chambers which operates via robotic controls and which is connected back to a central switching center for cablecast on to the system. Components to this system should include: · Add additional components to P.A. hardware to improve audio quality and television interface in order to provide level control. · Install wall mounted remote control cameras for better Council and Board coverage and angles.' There would only need to be one to two operators in a remote control room. No staff would need to be inside the chambers. For optimum coverage, five cameras are recommended: one behind the dais, one on each sidewall of the facility, and two at the rear of the room. The use of four to five cameras will provide for optimum flexibility and effective meeting coverage. · Integrate with existing video projectors or install new systems where needed, add extra wireless microphones, laser pointer, remote projector controls and easy lighting controls. Needs_Statement_MCTG_03 24 03.doc Communications Support Group, Inc. © 2003 Page 4 of 13 MENDOCINO CABLE TELEVISION GROUP (MCTG) REVIEW OF PUBLIC NEEDS If it were decided that there is potential future use of the chambers as a production studio, then additional improvements would be needed, such as a curtain track for a back drop, additional lighting (grid) for more directional lighting, tripods, camera studio configurations. Additionally, Ukiah Valley Community Television requires the complete outfitting of a studio production facility, three non-linear editing suites, and six portable digital camcorders. The County Information Services Department is in the process of providinq oversight, coordinate capital funds, purchases, file storage, and network operations as the managing principal of Ukiah Valley Community Television. In total the Inland's group's capital needs total as follows Ukiah Valley Community Television - $746,300 (includes fully equippin~ both Board chambers for live broadcast) Annual operational and staffing costs- $155,000 FIBER CONNECTIVITY Adelphia's General Manager stated in various public and private meetings that Adelphia will provide fiber drops to each facility responsible for live origination of community programming. This would include two strand (ingress & egress) single mode fiber feeds to and from the following buildings: Ft. Bragg Town Hall Ft. Bragg Police Department (City EOC) MCCET studio at Ft. Bragg High School Mendocino High School Willits City Hall Willits Police Department (City EOC) Willits COmmunity Television Studio Willits High School Mendocino County Museum - Willits Ukiah City Hall Ukiah High SChool New Grace Hudson Campus/Cultural Center Mendocino County Office of Education Mendocino Community College County Supervisor Chambers 363 North Main Street 250 Cypress Street 300 Dana 10700 Ford 111 East Commercial 125 E. Commercial 85 E. Commercial 299 N. Main Street 400 E. Commercial 300 Seminary Avenue 1000 Low Gap Road 1600 South State (approx. address) 2240 Eastside Rd. Talmage 1000 Hensley Creek Road 501 Low Gap Rd., Ukiah County Emergency Operations Center 175 South School St., Ukiah (this School St. location is in the process of being reviewed to be moved to Sheriff Operations on Low Gap Road) and is covered for connectivity in the I-Net contract. This is where County Information Services (IS) is located. During the course of this needs assessment, it was discovered that the County's Information Services Department is in the process of entering into a fiber lease contract Needs_Statement_MCTG_O3_24_O3.doc Communications Support Group, Inc. © 2003 Page 5 of 13 ITEM NO. toa DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT ON REGULATION OF SKATEBOARDS IN SHOPPING CENTERS AND OTHER PRIVATELY OWNED COMMERCIAL AREAS SUMMARY: Rod Johnson of Rod's Shoes in the Pear Tree Shopping Center wrote a letter, dated February 25, 2005, describing the impact of skateboarding on his business, other businesses in the shopping center, patrons and shopping center property. (See letter, Attachment :1.) He has requested the City Council to enact an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding at the shopping center. When City staff received the letter from Hr. Johnson, they informed him that this request would be presented to the City Council in April or May. Currently, the City's ordinance on skateboarding involves a prohibition only on certain designated public properties. If the Council determines to include private properties, this will be a change in policy and would then allow for other private property owners to request their properties be included. For the reasons described below, staff agrees that the City would have to enact an ordinance similar to the ordinance prohibiting parking on private property (see Ukiah City Code ("UCC") Section 7389, below) and the ordinance prohibiting skateboarding on designate areas on public property (see UCC §6190 below) in order to have the practical ability to enforce a prohibition on skateboarding on private commercial properly, such as the Pear Tree Center. Absent a City ordinance, the only basis for citing a skateboarder who is skateboarding on private property is subsection (o) in Penal Code Section 602, quoted in full below. That section makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to leave private property after being requested to do so. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and direct staff on whether or not to prepare ordinance ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/a Citizen Advised: Rod Johnson Requested by: Rod Johnson Prepared by: David J. Rapport. City Attorney Coordinated with: Candace Horsley. City Manager Attachments: 1. February~6~,2005. letter from Rod Johnson APPROVED: ~ ~_~/,~,~~-o,----~X Candace Horsley, Ci~Manager April 14, 2005 Page 2 of 4 A property owner, agent or person in possession may request a peace officer to instruct the person to leave, but a separate request is required for each incident, except that a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days, identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or the owner, owner's agent or person in lawful possession is absent from the premises or property. [n addition, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made for a period not to exceed six months when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed. As you can see, a continuing authorization to the police department is not practical for businesses which are open to the public. The City could adopt an ordinance making it an infraction or misdemeanor to skateboard on private property, if the property is properly posted to prohibit skateboarding. In any such ordinance, staff would recommend making the offense an infraction. Code Sections Cited Penal Code Section 602 (o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested. However, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days and identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or the owner, owner's agent or person in lawful possession is absent from the premises or property. In addition, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made for a period not to exceed six months when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed. However, this subdivision shall not be applicable to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities which are permitted to be carried out on the property by the California Agricultural Labor Relations ACt, Part 3.5 (commencing with Section 1140) of Division 2 of the Labor Code, or by the National Labor Relations Act. For purposes of this section, land, real property, or structures owned or operated by any housing authority for tenants as defined under Section 34213.5 of the Health and Safety Code constitutes property not open to the general public; however, this subdivision shall not apply to persons on the premises who are engaging in activiUes protected by the April 14, 2005 Page 3 of 4 California or United States Constitution, or to persons who are on the premises at the request of a resident or management and who are not loitering or otherwise suspected of violating or actually violating any law or ordinance. Ukiah City Code Section 7389: PARKZNG ON PRZVATE PROPERTY PROHZBZl'ED WHEN POSTED: It shall be unlawful and constitute a violation of this Article for any person to park a motor vehicle on private property in violation of instructions contained in a sign meeting the requirements of this Section. A. Sign requirements: 1. Location: The sign must be posted in plain view and visible at all entrances to the property. 2. Standards: The portion of the sign containing the message must measure not less than twenty two inches by seventeen inches (22"x 17") with lettering not less than one inch (1")in height. 3. Permissible Messages: The sign must contain one or more of the following messages: a. "Private Property. Public parking prohibited by Ukiah City Code §7355. Violations constitute an infraction." At the property owner's option the following may be added pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22658: Vehicles wi1/be removed at the owner's expense. Uk/ah Poi/ce Department telephone number: 463-6242. b. "Private Property. Public parking allowed between .m. to .m. Parking at other times prohibited by Ukiah City Code §7389." At the property owner's option the following may be added pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 22658, 22953: Vehicles parked in v/o/at/on will be removed at the owner's expense. Uk/ah Poi/ce Department telephone number: 463-6242. c. "Private Property. Public parking limited to customers of. Parking by others prohibited by Ukiah City Code §7389." At the property owner's option the following may be added pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22658: Vehicles parked in v/o/ab'on will be removed at the owner's expense. Ukiah Po/ice Department telephone number: 463-6242. April 14, 2005 Page 4 of 4 B. Single-Family Residences: Nothing contained in this Section shall require a sign at the entrance to a lot or parcel improved with a single-family dwelling in order to tow a vehicle parked thereon without the permission of the owner or other person in lawful possession of the property pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22658. (Ord. 915, §1, adopted 1990) 6Z80: PROH]~BZl'ZON ON USE OF SKATEBOARDS: No person shall operate, ride, propel or use a device with wheels commonly known and designated as a "skateboard" or any variation thereof in, on or over any public street, sidewalk, sidewalk space, park, public pedestrian walkway, publicly owned building, publicly owned property, publicly owned facility, or publicly owned parking facility, including such streets, sidewalks, spaces, walkways, buildings, property or facilities owned by Ukiah Unified School District within the City of Ukiah, when such street, sidewalk, space, park, walkway, public building or facility is posted with appropriate signs or markings prohibiting such use. The prohibition and the posting of such signs or markings shall be first established and approved by resolution of the city council. The city council shall so designate property belonging to Ukiah Unified School District only upon the written request of its board of directors. The district shall post the required signs. (Ord. 900, §2, adopted 1990; Ord. 1036, r:j2, adopted 2002) Since this is a request for change in policy to include private property in an ordinance for prohibition of skateboarding, Staff is requesting Council's discussion of the issue and to provide direction to staff. PEAR ORCHARD ASSOCIATES ^TTAOHMEi~E~'''~ 1050 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 285 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903 (4 I 5) 479-7300 February 25, 2005 Mayor Mark Ashiku City of Ukiah c/o City Clerks Office 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Pear Tree Center Dear Mayor Ashiku: I am writing to request that the City Council amend the skateboarding ordinance, 6180, to include the Pear Tree Center. The skateboarders have caused property damage and also put our customers at risk. We have had to hire private security from time to time to deal with the skateboarding problem. If the ordinance covered the Pear Tree Center, it would give the Ukiah Police Department greater ability to deal with the skateboarders. Will you let me know how to get this scheduled as an agenda item? I can be reached at 415-479-7300. Sincerely, , Leshe Walker Property Manager CC: Candace Horsley City Manager AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: April 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION In response to community concerns, the City Council held a series of meetings regarding the possible regulation of marijuana cultivation, directed staff to prepare a draft zoning ordinance, reviewed the draft ordinance, and sent it to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission held a workshop/discussion on April 13, received public comment, invited opponents of the proposed ordinance to submit an alternative ordinance, and continued the item to May 25th. Councilmember McCowen is requesting that the adoption of an urgency ordinance be agendized for discussion and possible direction to staff. Should the Council adopt an urgency ordinance, it would be in effect pending action by the Planning Commission and Council on whether or not to adopt a zoning ordinance for the regulation of marijuana cultivation. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss alternatives and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Councilmember McCowen Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A April 20, 2005 Memo from Councilmember McCowen Candace Horsley, ~ity Manager 4:CAN/ASR.MarijuanaOrd.042005 Attachment #_ I TO: MAYOR ASHIKU AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: COUNCILMEMBER MC COWEN RE: URGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION April 20, 2005 On 4/13/05 the Planning Commission was harangued with numerous strident and emotionally charged rhetorical statements. A limited number of constructive comments were presented. The great majority of speakers were not from Ukiah but were part of an organized group of marijuana growers and advocates whose avowed purpose was to derail the proposed ordinance. The mood of the crowd was not conducive to a balanced, reasoned or thoughtful discussion of the proposed ordinance. There was scant acknowledgement of the public safety impacts of unregulated marijuana growing in residential neighborhoods and virtually no mention of practical or constructive steps that could be taken to limit the impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. In accord with the invitation by the Planning Commission for the opponents to submit an alternative ordinance, I welcome the cooperation of any individual or group who is willing to offer suggestions on how to balance the needs of medical marijuana patients with the rights of the majority of our citizens to feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods. I am not willing to sit idly by while commercial growers and drug dealers gear up for another growing season. I believe it is imperative that we act to protect the public safety while an ordinance is being developed. i suggest that the urgency ordinance be somewhat less restrictive than the proposed ordinance in an effort to address some of the more constructive comments. Specifically, there were comments about the possible negative health and safety impacts of indoor growing. Accordingly, the urgency ordinance might make some allowance for growing in a detached greenhouse. I am confident that nothing we do will meet with the approval of a majority of the opponents, and that if we do anything at all we will in all probability be sued. Nevertheless, I believe it is our duty to take reasonable measures designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of our citizens who only wish to feel safe in their own homes. AGENDA ITEM NO: ,./~ e~- MEETING DATE: April 20, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PUBLIC HEARINGS (MCCOWEN) AND/OR LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT (RODIN) At the September 6, 2005 Council meeting, Councilmember McCowen requested that the Council consider a request for local public hearings for the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act HR 233. Councilmember Rodin requested that the City Council consider sending a letter of support for HR 233, reaffirming the action taken by the Council in November 2001 in the form of a resolution in support of the bill. Draft letters are attached for your consideration. Both Councilmembers will be in attendance to provide verbal information regarding this issue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage act and determine whether to hold public hearings and/or send letter of support. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Yes Councilmembers McCowen and Rodin Candace Horsley, City Manager Councilmembers McCowen and Rodin · 2. 3. 4. · Letter from Liberty and draft letter to Chair Pombo Overview of HR233 Common Questions about HR233 List of Community Leaders and Organizations who Support HR233 Draft letters of support City of Ukiah Resolution 2002-21 Packet of information from Ellen Drell Approved' Candace Horsley, City l~anager 4:CAN/ASR.WildemessAct.042005 March 20, 2005 John McCowen P.O. Box 454 Ukiah CA 95482 Dear Council Member McCowen: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Employer's Council of Mendocino County and myself please find enclosed a proposed letter from the Ukiah City Council. This letter is to Congressman Pombo requesting local public hearings regarding H.R. 233, the Thompson Wilderness Bill. Congressman Pombo is the Chair of the committee currently considering H.R. 233. Please feel free to call me at any time if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance. Kindest regards, Ross H. Liberty Board Member, ECMC RL/rl Enclosure 150 Parducci Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 · (707) 463-1322 fax (707) 463-1384 Chairman Richard Pombo House Committee on Resources 1324 LHOB Washington, DC 20515 FA~X: 202.225.5929 Dear Chairman Pombo: The Ukiah City Council understands that Congressman Mike Thompson has introduced H.R. 233 - the Northern California Wilderness Act. The Ukiah City Council has followed this legislation in various forms for the last several years. Last year the U.S. Senate held hearings in Washington D.C on S738, the the apparent companion bill to H.R. 234. However, it is apparent that the hearing panel was rather limited in scope. H.R. 233 includes numerous areas in our area such as the Sanhedrin Mountain Proposed Wilderness, the Black Butte River and Cold Creek Wild and Scenic River Designation near Covelo, the South Fork Eel River Proposed Wilderness in the Laytonville/Legget area, and the Leech Lake Mountain region of the Yolla-Bolly/Middle Eel River Proposed Wilderness. Should the 109th Congress choose to hold hearings on H.R. 233, the Ukiah City Council respectfully requests that the Committee on Resources hold a field hearing on it in our area. This would give local residents and those most affected by the proposed legislation a chance give testimony or otherwise participate. Sincerely, The Ukiah City Council Attachment # Attachment # · · · · · '1 · · · · · · Attachment # Community leaders and organizations who support HR 233 Current and former elected and appointed officials from the Iat. Congressional District: Senator Wesley Chesbro Assemblymember Lois Wolk Assemblymember Patty Berg Virginia Strom-Martin, Former Assemblymember Supervisor Jill Geist, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Supervisor John Woolley, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Gary Lewis, Lake County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Ed Robey, Lake County Board of Supervisors Karan Mackey, former member of the Lake County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Patricia Campbell, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Supervisor J. David Colfax, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Richard Shoemaker, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Hal Wagenet, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Dianne Dillon, Napa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Bill Dodd, Napa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Mark Luce, Napa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Mike Rippey, Napa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, Napa County Board of Supervisors Mci Varrelman, Former Napa County Board of Supervisor Supervisor Mike McGowan, Yolo County Supervisor Helen Thomson, Yolo County Dave Rosenberg, Former Supervisor, Yolo County Councilmember Elizabeth Connor, City of Arcata Councilmember Michael Machi, City of Arcata Councilmember Dave Meserve, City of Arcata Councilmember Bob Ornelas, City of Arcata Councilmember Connie Stewart, City of Arcata Robert Noble, Former Councilmember, City of Arcata Jim Test, Former Mayor, City of Arcata Mayor Dave Nakamura, City of Blue Lake Councilmember Sherman Shapiro, City of Blue Lake Mayor Ruth Asmundson, City of Davis Councilmember Sue Greenwald, City of Davis Councilmember Ted Puntillo, City of Davis Susie Boyd, Former Mayor, City of Davis Mike Harrington, Former Councilmember ,City of Davis Councilmember Chris Kerrigan, City of Eureka Councilmember, Jeff Leonard, City of Eureka Mayor Peter LaVallee, Mayor of Eureka Mayor Ed Henderson, City of Napa Councilmember Leslie Dahlhoff, City of Point Arena Councilmember Debra Keipp, Point Arena City Council Councilmember Kevin Gallagher, Point Arena City Council Councilmember Lauren Sinnott, Point Arena City Council Councilmember John Tanti, Point Arena City Council Councilmember Richard Wasserman, Point Arena City Council Councilmember Paul Andersen, Ukiah City Council Vice-Mayor Phil Baldwin, Ukiah City Council Mayor Eric Larsen, Ukiah City Council Kathy Libby, Former Councilmember, Ukiah City Council Councilmember Mari Rodin, Ukiah City Council Councilmember Roy Smith, Ukiah City Council Phillip Ashiku, Ph.D., Former Mayor, Ukiah City Council Councilmember Tami Jorgensen, Willits City Council Councilmember Ron Orenstein, Willits City Council Mayor Karen Oslund, City of Willits District Attorney Paul V. Gallegos, Humboldt County Director Susan Monteleone, Brooktrails Community Services District Mendocino County Democratic Central Committee Current and former elected and appointed officials from outside of the Iat. Congressional District: Lt Governor Cruz Bustamante, State of Treasurer Phil Angelides, State of California California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack Attorney General Bill Lockyer, State of O'Connell, State of California California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, State of Califomia The California State Assembly and Senate Speaker Herb Wesson Former Assemblymember Elaine Alquist Former Assemblymember Dion Aroner Former Assemblymember Thomas M. Calderon Assemblymember Joseph Canciamilla Former Assemblymember Tony Cardenas (on la city council now?) Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Wilma Chan Ed Chavez Judy Chu Rebecca Cohn Ellen M. Corbett Lou Correa Manny Diaz Dario Frommer Jackie Goldberg Assemblymember Tom Harman Former Assemblymember Sally Havice Former Assemblymember Robert M. Hertzberg Assemblymember Jerome Horton Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson Former Assemblymember and Speaker pro Tem Fred Keeley Assemblymember Christine Kehoe Assemblymember Paul Koretz Assemblymember Carol Liu Assemblymember John Longville Assemblymember Alan Lowenthal Former Assemblymember Carole Migden Assemblymember George Nakano Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Assemblymember Joe Nation Gloria Negrete McLeod Jenny Oropeza Fran Pavley Sarah L. Reyes Simon Salinas S. Joseph Simitian Assemblymember Darrell Steinberg Former Assemblymember Helen Thomson Former Assemblymember Carl Washington Former Assemblymember Howard Wayne Assemblymember Patricia Wiggins Former Assemblymember Roderick Wright Former Assemblymember Virginia Strom- Martin Senate President John Burton Senator Bruce McPherson Senator Tom Torlakson Senator Dede Alpert Senator Byron Sher Senator Nell Soto Senator Gilbert Cedillo Deputy Mayor George Stevens, San Diego Councilmember Donna Frye, San Diego Councilmember Ralph Inzunza, San Diego City of Santa Clarita City of Duarte City of Inglewood Mayor Judith Valles, San Bernadino Mayor Ronald Loveridge, Riverside Mayor Efren J. Moreno, Alhambra Mayor John Hunt, Banning Mayor Beverly O'Neill, Long Beach Mayor Phillip R. Reyes, Duarte Mayor Pro Tem Gregory S. Pettis, Cathedral City Mayor Pro Tem George Chapjian, Duarte Mayor Pro Tempore Mayda Winter, Imperial Beach Vice Mayor Louie A. Lujan, La Puente Councilman Mitch Beauchamp, National City Councilmember Ron Oden, Palm Springs Councilmember Gary George, Redlands Councilmember Ameal Moore, Riverside Councilmember John Fasana, Duarte Councilmember Margaret E. Finlay, Duarte Councilmember Tzeitel R. Paras, Duarte Councilwoman Mary Salas, Chula Vista Coastal Commissioner and Councilmember Patricia McCoy, Imperial Beach Ventura County Board of Supervisors Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors Supervisor Steve Bennett, Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, Ventura County Supervisor Gail Marshall, Santa Barbara County Supervisor Susan J. Rose, Santa Barbara County Supervisor Naomi Schwartz, Santa Barbara County Supervisor Shirley Bianchi, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Peg Pinard, San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Janet K. Beautz, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Jeff Almquist, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ellen Pirie, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Tony Campos, Santa Cruz County City of San Luis Obispo City of Santa Barbara Mayor Allen K. Settle, San Luis Obispo Mayor Joe De Vito, Ojai Mayor Many Blum, Santa Barbara Mayor Christopher Kohn, Santa Cruz Councilmember Ruth M. Vreeland, Monterey Matin County Board of Supervisors San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Alameda County Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Jim Beall, Santa Clara County Supervisor Michael D. Nevin, San Mateo County Supervisor Annette Rose, Matin County Supervisor Cynthia Murray, Matin County Former Supervisor John Kress, Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, Marin County Supervisor Harold C. Brown, Marin County Former Supervisor Donna Gerber, Contra Costa County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Contra Costa County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker, Alameda County City and County of San Francisco City of Berkeley City of Pleasanton Mayor Willie Brown Jr., San Francisco Mayor Ron Gonzales, San Jose Mayor Karin MacMillan, Fairfield Mayor Shirley Dean, Berkeley Mayor Irma L. Anderson, Richmond Mayor Jerry Brown, Oakland Mayor Anthony J. Initintoli, Jr., Vallejo Councilmember Cindy Chavez, San Jose Councilmember Linda J. LeZotte, San Jose Councilmember Forrest Williams, San Jose Supervisor Bill Santucci, Placer County Supervisor Rex Bloomfield, Placer County Supervisor Barbara Green, Nevada County Supervisor Peter Van Zant, Nevada County Former Supervisor Bruce Conklin, Nevada County Former Supervisor Elizabeth J. Martin, Nevada County Former Supervisor G.B. Tucker, Nevada County Former Supervisor Sam Dardick, Nevada County Mayor Heather Fargo, Sacramento Councilmember Dave Jones, Sacramento Councilmember Lauren Hammond, Sacramento Anne Marsh, former Supervisor, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Arnold Whitridge, former Supervisor, Trinity County Board of Supervisors Religious organizations and leaders from the 1st. Congressional District: Arcata Zen Center, Arcata Kelseyville Presbyterian Church, Kelseyville Relil!ious organizations and leaders from outside the 1st. Congressional District: Tibetan Buddhist Center, Junction City Rev. Pamela Coy, United Methodist Church, Rev. Carl H. Schwarzenberg, United Methodist Etna Church, Etna Tribes from the 1't Congressional District: Cahto Tribe of Laytonville Rancheria, Mendocino Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians, Redwood Valley Businesses owners and other community leaders from the Iat. Congressional District: Northern California Homebuilders Association 101 Redwood Company, Willits Andrew Christian, RE/MAX Real Estate, Arcata Andreyka Coklyat, Heartwood Institute, Garberville Art Harwood, Owner, Harwood Industries, Branscomb Aurora River Adventures, Willow Creek Barbara Turner and Art Burton, Owners, Northtown Books, Arcata Bernard MacDonald, Omni Instruments, Albion Bill Wing, Owner, Wing Inflatables, Arcata Black Oak Ranch Free Medical Clinic, Laytonville Blake and Ellen Stretton, Owners, Oakleaf Enterprises, Bridgeville Blythe Riess, Co-Owner, Sandy Bar Ranch, Orleans Bob Barsotti, Long Valley Events, Laytonville Brian Dick, Owner, Yolla Bolla Llamas, Covelo Bruce Burger, President Emeritus, Heartwood Institute, Garberville Charles McFadin, retired District Ranger of the Mendocino NF's Covelo Ranger District, Covelo Charles Ream, Owner, Windswept Ranch, Willits Chuck Sturges, Principal, Natural High School, Lakeport Colleen Stewart, Wine & Food Educator, Fetzer Vineyard, Hopland Daniel Shaw Close, Recreation and Wellness Director, Klamath-Del Norte California David Drell, Owner, Landscape Design, Willits David Robertson, Director, Artist in Bioregional Residence Program, Davis Doral Cruser, Teacher, Little River Doug Riley-Thron, Thron Nature Photography, Arcata Dr. Dan Ihara, Department of Economics, Humboldt State University, Arcata Ecole: Adventures International, Redway Ecosystem Institute, Arcata Ellen Drell, Owner, Landscape Design, Willits Emandal--A Farm on a River, Willits Fetzer Vineyards, Ukiah Gail MacKenzie, Business Owner, Leggett Garberville Chiropractic, Garberville Gary Owen, Owner, Gary Owen Landscape Construction, Willits Gordon Oslund, Principal, Willits High School Greg Hanson, Owner, Hanson Ranch, Kelseyville Gregory Byers, Luthier, Willits H.W. Gordon, M.D., H.W.Gordon Medical Corporation, Ukiah Hal Wagenet, owner, 101 Redwood Company, Willits Hanson Ranch, Kelseyville Heartwood Institute, Garberville Hidden Valley Organic Farms, Mad River Humboldt State University Department of Natural Resources, Arcata Jacqueline and John Mahony, owners, Big Rock Ranch, Miranda Jameson Creek Nursery, Fortuna Janice Smith, Commercial Property Owner, Laytonville Jeff Morris, Mamma Lama's, Weaverville Jefferey Hedin Construction Arts, Piercy Jim Utes, Stephen's Glass, Mad River Joanie Mitchell, Owner, Nobody's Business, Laytonville John Marshall, Owner, John Marshall: works in fabric, Covelo John Schaeffer, Presdient, Real Goods Trading, Ukiah Jon and Margaret Hayes, Owner, Westside Outdoorsman, Willits Jon Spitz, Owner, The GoodFood Store, Laytonville Joseph L. Costello, Attorney at Law, Sonoma Joshua Carron, Director, Claremont Spring Folk Festival, Fort Bragg Joshua Kinch, Sweet Home Realty, Arcata Karin Riley-Thron, General Manager and Partner, Turquoise River Wilderness Retreat, Arcata Kokatat Water Sportswear, Arcata Koll Buerr Department of Water resources L.E. Zerzon, Owner, L.E. Zerzon Illustrations & Graphics, Arcata Lake County Title Company, Lakeport Larry Buwalda, Owner, Adventure's Edge, Arcata Law Offices of Rodney Richard Jones, Mendocino Leona Walden, Director, Pacific Ridge Advertising, Mendocino Long Valley Events, Laytonville Luan Zen Imports, Redway Maria W. Globbus, Landowner, Branscomb Mariavittoria Mangini, Black Oak Ranch Free Medical Clinic, Laytonville North Coast Co-Op, Arcata Northtown Books, Arcata Oakleaf Enterprises, Bridgeville Omni Instruments, Albion Oriental Medical Services, Arcata Pacific Ridge Advertising, Mendocino Paul J. Trichillo, Owner, Just Your Type, Fortuna Peter F. Windrem, Owner, Law Offices of Peter F. Windrem, Lakeport Peter Steel, Landowner and University of California Reserve Manager, Branscomb Pure and Simple Pottery Products, Willits R. Stephen Devoto, President, Lake County Title Company, Kelseyville Randy Wood, Owner, Peter Pugger Inc., Willits Rhoda Teplow, Owner, Rhoda Teplow Presents, Mendocino Rick Klein, Ecole: Adventures International, Redway Rick Wilson, Owner, Cache Canyon Whitewater River Dancers Rafting Company, Mount Shasta Roanne Withers, Business Owner, Fort Bragg Roberta Rams, Dentist, Landowner, Gualala Robin Goldner, MSW, Willits Rodney Jones, Lawyer, Mendocino Ron Guenther, Business Owner, Fort Bragg Ron Stark &Stan Thornton, Business Owners, Stark and Thornton Construction, Mendocino Sacred Grounds Coffee House, Arcata Sally Arney, Physical Therapist Sandy Bar Ranch, Orleans Sawblade Tavern, Phillipsville Sharon Paltin, Black Oak Ranch Free Medical Clinic, Laytonville Shelia Jenkins, Pure and Simple Pottery Products, Willits Signature Coffee Company, Redway Soda Creek Store, Potter Valley Susan Pepperwood, PhD., Willits Susanne Scholz, Executive Director, Lake County Land Trust, Lakeport Sweet Home Realty, Arcata Tamara Adams, Owner, Emandal-A Farm on a River, Willits Thron Nature Photography, Arcata Tia Oros, Program Director, Seventh Generation Fund, Arcata Tom Reed, Director, Wild Coast School of Aikido, Fort Bragg Toni Leet, Owner, Good Food Store, Laytonville Turquoise River Wilderness Retreat, Arcata Wild Coast Aikido, Fort Bragg Woodworkers Local Lodge W-469, Fort Bragg Businesses owners and other community leaders from outisde the Iat. Congressional District: KB Homes All the Answers, Weaverville Anne Marsh, Owner, M&M Tax Service, Etna Arnold Wasserman, Hearst Publishing Corp., Etna Artworks, Mount Shasta Bar 77 Ranch, Hyampom Barbara Trenam Pottery, Dunsmuir Betsy Smyser, Siskiyou County Court Research Attorney Big Rock Ranch, Miranda Bill Huber, owner, Turtle Rock Vineyards, Hayfork Blue Ridge Ranch Packing, Forks of Salmon Bob and Jan Mountjoy, Co-chairs, Hayfork Action Team, Hayfork Brown Trout Gallery, Dunsmuir Camp Trinity, Hyampom Carla Miller, All The Answers, Weaverville Cave Springs Resort, Dunsmuir CCT Computer Learning Center, Junction City Charles Rose, Chair, E1 Dorado County Local Disaster Council, Garden Valley Charles Sweet, Ph.D., Owner, KnoSys, Hyampom Chris Schneider Design, Mount Shasta Cottage Design and Restoration, Dunsmuir David Clark, CCT Computer Learning Center, Junction City David Jacques, Owner, Blue Ridge Ranch Packing, Forks of Salmon David Ledger, Ledger Paper Company, Redding Don & Connie Massie, Owners, Corning Medical Associates Inc, Corning Doris Presley, Owner, Woodland Hills Mobile Home Park, Yreka Dr. Sandra Lotsler Optometry, Yreka Drew Franklin, Mountain Market Place, Weaverville Duden Woodworks, Mount Shasta Dunsmuir Hardware, Dunsmuir Erik M. Flikwir, owner, Trinity Mountain Design, Hayfork Gandy Dancer Caf6, Dunsmuir George L. Grochol, Manager of Train Operations, Union Pacific Railroad, Dunsmuir Godrey Creations, Forks of Salmon Golden West Hobbies, Edgewood H.K. Miller, Mount Shasta Red Lion Hotel & Creative Artists, Weed Holiday Travel Bureau, Mount Shasta Inside/Outside Associates, Mount Shasta Jahanara Romney, Administrative Director, Camp Winnarainbow, Berkeley Jennifer Hardy, Guinevere's Candles, Bridgeville Jim Fitzgerald, Forest Service Hydrologist, Hayfork John Gangemi, Director, American Whitewater, Bigfork, MT Ken Baldwin, Registered Professional Forester, Douglas City Kenneth P. Roye, Attorney at Law, Montague and Chico Louis and Jackie Papaciho, Hidden Valley Organic Farms, Mad River Mark Middleton, Rattlesnake Ridge Engineering, Mad River Matthew Melcon, Moxie's Cafe and Gallery, Chico Melissa Shockey Certified Massage Therapist, Forks of Salmon Mike Michalak, owner, The Fly Shop, Redding Native Grounds Nursery and Garden Center, Mount Shasta Northstate Council on Physical Fitness & Sports, Anderson Otter Bar Lodge Kayak School, Forks of Salmon Patrick Garrison, Fishery Biologist, Fish and Game, Weaverville Peggy Risch Physical Therapy, Mount Shasta Peter and Kristy Sturges, Owners, Otter Bar Lodge Kayak School, Forks of Salmon Peter Brucker, Owner, Godfrey Creations, Forks of Salmon Quailhearst Nursery, Shasta Lake Rattlesnake Ridge Engineering, Mad River Redding Communications, Inc., Redding River Bend Books, Anderson River Spirit School of Natural Living, Mad River Ron McHale, Owner, AAMCOA Construction Company, Oroville Sandy Scofield, Biological Technician, Mount Shasta Sengthong's Restaurant, Dunsmuir Serigraphs, Bridgeville Shasta Physical Therapy, Redding She'om Rose, River Spirit School of Natural Living, Mad River Simmons Handcral~s, Bridgeville Spring Hill Nursery and Gardens, Mount Shasta Susan Ickes, Landowner, Hayfork Ted Flay Flyshop, Dunsmuir The Eden Project, Kenwood The Gardening Works, Mount Shasta The Video Station, Dunsmuir Tom and Calleagh Ferrara, Owners, Colors of the Earth, Mad River Trini Campbell, Riverdog Farm, Guinda Uschi und Eberhard Schneider, Old Garrett Ranch Cabins by the River, Owner, Hyampom Viola Cafferata, Owner, Viola's Garden, Forks of Salmon Wild Things, Weaverville Window Box Nursery, Dunsmuir Wing Inflatables, Arcata Wordsmiths Marketing, Dunsmuir Outdoor groups from the 1't. Congressional District: Clear Lake Horsemen's Association, Lakeport Six Rivers Paddling Club, Eureka Yolohiker, Davis Outdoor groups from outside the Iat. Congressional District: Gold Country Paddlers, Coloma River City Whitewater Club, Sacramento Wineries from the 1at Congressional District: Casa Nuestra, St. Helena Ceja Vineyards, Napa Devoto Vineyards, Lake County Hetiz Cellars, St. Helena Kendall Jackson Winery, Alexander Valley Muir-Hannah Winery, Napa Pacific Star Winery, Fort Bragg Paradigm Winery, Oakville Robert Craig Wine Cellars, Napa Robert Mondavi Winery, Napa Schramsberg Vineyards, St. Helena Stony Hill Vineyard, St, Helena Turley Wine Cellars, St. Helena Wineries from outside the 1at Congressional District: Englemann Cellars, Fresno La Rocca Vineyards, Forest Ranch Conservation organizations from the Iat. Congressional District: Ancient Forest International, Redway Cache Creek Wild, Davis California Alpine Club, Sonoma California Native Plant Society, Dorothy King Young Chapter, Fort Bragg California Native Plant Society, Eureka California Native Plant Society, Sanhedrin Chapter, Ukiah California Oak Foundation, Ukiah California Ocean Sanctuary Federation, Mendocino Coast Action Group, Mendocino Deep Ecology Resource Center, Garberville Environmental Protection Information Center, Garberville Institute for Solar Living, Ukiah Institute for Sustainable Forestry, Redway Lake County Land Trust, Lakeport Mattole River Conservancy, Petrolia Middle Mattole Conservancy, Honeydew Mill Creek Watershed Conservancy, Petrolia North Group Redwood Chapter Sierra Club, Kneeland Northcoast Environmental Center, Arcata Plight of the Redwoods Campaign, Fort Bragg Redbud Audubon Society, Clear Lake Sierra Club Mendocino/Lake Group, Fort Bragg Sierra Club Yolano Group Sierra Club, Lake County Group, Kelseyville Sierra Club, Redwood Chapter, Santa Rosa Trinity-Klamath Wilderness Coalition, Arcata Yolo Audubon Society, Davis Conservation organizations from outside of the 1st. Congressional District: Altacal Audubon Society Inc, Chico California Native Plant Society, Sacramento California Trout, San Francisco Citizens for Better Forestry, Hayfork Ecology Center of Southern California, Los Angeles Friends of Chinquapin, Newark Grads for Old Growth, Hayfork Institute for Cultural Ecology, San Francisco Klamath Forest Alliance, Ema Lovers of American Forests, Hayfork North Fork Association, Alburquerque Redwood Action Team, Stanford University Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Hayfork Shasta Group, Motherlode Chapter, Sierra Club, Redding Sierra Club, Yahi Group, Chico Siskiyou Regional Education Project, Cave Junction, Oregon South Fork Mountain Defense, Mad River South Fork Trinity River Land Conservancy, Mad River The Eden Project, Kenwood World Wildlife Fund, Ashland Yahi Group, Motherlode Chapter, Sierra Club, Chico Date: Attachment # From: Ukiah City Mayor Ashiku and City Council members 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 To: The Honorable Mike Thompson U.S. House of Representatives 119 Cannon House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515 Re: Support for the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, H.R.233 Dear Congressman Thompson; The City of Ukiah would like to express its strong support for the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, H.R.233. It is our belief that the assurance of long term protection afforded by Wilderness designation is not only a benefit to our region's watersheds, fisheries and natural ecosystems, but it is also a benefit to our local economy. Wilderness designation of these public lands in Mendocino County will highlight these unique and beautiful areas and attract tourists seeking that kind of recreational experience. Mendocino County will be known not only for its coastline, but for its magnificent inland wilderness as well. It is our belief that this Bill has been carefully written to accommodate the differing concerns of various interest groups such as hunters, recreational vehicle users, neighboring property owners, those concerned about fire issues and issues about access. We feel satisfied that your office has built support for this legislation from the local level up by consulting with user groups and affected parties over the course of several years. The CiW of Ukiah has held public discussions on this issue as have other jurisdictions in the County. For these reasons we sincerely hope that this Bill will be heard in the appropriate Congressional committees and moved on to the full House as soon as is possible. Thank you for your efforts to conserve and highlight this region's important wilderness resources. Sincerely, KRISTI FURMAN Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF MENDOCINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 501 Low Gap Road · Room 1090 Ukiah, California 95482 TELEPHONE: (707) 4634221 FAX: (707) 463:4245 E-MAIL: bos@co.mendocino.ca.us Attachment March 22, 2005 The Honorable Mike Thompson, Congressman United States House of Representatives 119 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205]5 RE: Suppgrt for H. tL233, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilde. mess Act Dear Congr~ ompson: On March 22, 2005, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors reaffirmed their support for H.tL233, the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act on a 4/0 vote. This is the third time since 2001 that this Board has expressed its support for creating additional Wilderness areas in our region. H.K233 has strong local support in Mendocino County as evidenced by local supporting resolutions and letters to legislators. Additionally, local dected officials and citizens have travded to Washington D.C. on numerous occasions to express this support direcdy to members of Congress...The Board believes that this Bill has been crafted so as to meet the needs of the various groups who use these areas while protecting the wilderness character and the outstanding natural assets of these areas. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisom believes that a Wilderness designation of these areas will emphasize their outstanding value for protection of important fisheries, watershed protection, backcountry recreation and the promotion of tourism and economic diversity in Mendocino County. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of these areas. Sincerely, ,(~ "~ J. David Colfax, Vice-ChaPman Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Wesley Chesbro Assemblymember Patty Berg Alcalde & Fay, LegisLative Advocate Mr. Don Peterson, Legislative Advocate CSAC THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MICHAEL M. DELBAR First District JIM R. WATTENBURGER Second District HAL WAGENET Third District KENDALL SMITH Fourth District J. DAVID COLFAX Fifth District RESOLUTION NO. 03-229 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, SUPPORTING H. R. 1501, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WILD HERITAGE WILDERNESS ACT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is committed to improving the quality of life of the citizens of Mendocino County; and WHEREAS, the economic base of many of the residents and businesses in Mendocino County are dependent on natural resources for their continued success and for future employment opportunities; and WHEREAS, certain Federal lands in Mendocino County have outstanding value for their protection of threatened fisheries, watershed protection, backcountry recreation, the promotion of tourism and economic diversity in Mendocino County; and WHEREAS, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors endorses the concept of protecting wilderness areas in certain portions of Mendocino County including the following: the YollqBolly-Middle Eel Additions, the YuM Wilderness, the Sanhedrin Wilderness, the South Fork Eel River Source Wilderness, the Black Butte River Wild and Scenic River; a tributary of the Wild and Scenic Middle Fork Eel River, and part of the Chemise Mountain area in the King Range. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors supports the designation of certain lands, as depicted on the map entitled "Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act", in Mendocino County as Wilderness, through Wilderness legislation, as proposed in H. R. 1501, and as in the companion legislation, Senate Bill S. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors, of the County of Mendocino, hereby expresses its support of H. R. 1501, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Act, and encourages its passage. The foregoing Resolution introduced by Supervisor Wagenet, seconded by Supervisor Campbell, and carried this 28~ day of October, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Supervisors Wagenet, Campbell, Colfax, and Shoemaker Supervisor Delbar None WHEREUPON, the Chairman declared said Resolution a~lopted andbO ORDERED. RICHARD SHOEMAKER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: KRISTI FURMAN Clerk of the Board ,~"eby ceAd¥ that according ~, .. provisions ol Govemment Code Section 25103, delivery of this document has been made. KRIST! FURMAN Clerk of the Board RESOLUTION NO: 2002-21 Attachment RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN MENDOCINO COUNTY AS WILDERNESS THROUGH FEDERAL WILDERNESS LEGISLATION WHEREAS, certain federal lands in Mendocino County have outstanding value for protection of threatened fisheries, watershed protection, backcountry recreation, and other beneficial uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ukiah City Council supports the designation of certain federal lands in Mendocino County as Wilderness through federal Wilderness legislation, including the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Additions, the Yuki Wilderness, Black Butte, Sanhedrin, English Ridge, and the South Fork Eel/Cahto Peak/Red Mountain areas. PASSED AND ADOPTED on the 7th day of November 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmember Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku None None None ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~h'illip Ashiku, Mayor City of Ukiah, California Certified To Be A True and Exact Copy Resolution No. 2002-1~,2 / Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. DATE:April 20,2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM Attached for your consideration is a draft resolution submitted for City Council consideration from Councilmember John McCowen. The language of the resolution summarizes the issues involved. Councilmember McCowen will verbally present this item at the Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss Adoption of Resolution Opposing Proposed Changes to the In-Home Supportive Services Program ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide direction to staff or take no action at this time. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Councilmember John McCowen Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Proposed Resolution 2. County Resolution of the IHSS Advisory Committee APPROVED: ASR: In Home Services Funding 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2005 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH OPPOSING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM WHEREAS, since October 2000, wages for In-Home Supportive Services (IHHS) care Providers in Mendocino County have increased from a minimum wage of $6.75 to the current rate of $8.50 per hour; and WHEREAS, due to that increase in care Provider wages, Mendocino County has seen an upgrade in the quality of care received by In-Home Supportive Services recipients due to the ability of the Program to attract and retain quality Providers; and WHEREAS, over 300 IHSS Providers live in Ukiah and work an estimated 18,500 hours per month, earning $157,250 gross monthly. A reduction to minimum wage will reduce income to Ukiah Providers to $124,875 and constitute a $32,375 monthly loss to the local economy; and WHEREAS, with the recent addition of health benefits for IHSS care Providers in California, workers are staying healthy and keeping their clients healthy because they now have access to health care and increasing the quality of life for themselves; and WHEREAS, the affordability of the IHSS Program is underscored by the cost and availability of the residential care facility beds in Mendocino County, which number 194 with an 88% occupancy rate, an average cost of $5,000 per month, and the maximum monthly cost of an IHSS case is $2,405. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council hereby opposes the Governor's proposals to remove the state contribution to IHSS Provider benefits and wages above minimum wage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Attachment # RESOLUTION OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY IHSS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPOSING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM Whereas, since October 2000, wages for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) care providers in Mendocino County have increased from a minimum wage of $6.75 to the current rate of $8.50 per hour; and Whereas, due to that increase in care provider wages Mendocino County has seen an upgrade in the quality of care received by In-Home Supportive Services recipients due to the ability of the program to attract and retain quality providers; and Whereas, with the recent addition of health benefits for IHSS care providers in California, workers are staying healthy and keeping their clients healthy becauSe they now have access to health care and an increasing quality of life for themselves; and Whereas, the affordability of the IHSS program is underscored by the cost and availability of residential care facility beds in Mendocino County, which number 194 with an 88% occupancy rate and an average cost of $5,000 per month, and the maximum monthly cost of an IHSS case is $2,405; Therefore: the IHSS Advisory Committee recommends that the IHSS Public Authority Governing Board oppose the Governor's proposals to remove the state contribution to IHSS provider wages above minimum wage. On behalf of the IHSS Advisory Committee, Roberta King, Chair March 14, 2005 Date