Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-06-01 Packet
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 1, 2005 6:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m.: WASTEWATER WORKSHOP 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INTRODUCTIONS/PROCLAMATION a. Introduction of Police Officers Promoted: Captain Trent Taylor, Sergeant Darren W ojciezak, and Sergeant Sean Kaeser b. Proclamation: "Hate Free Awareness Month in Ukiah, California" 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2005 b. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005 5. 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's Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 1 a. b. c. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. Authorize Director of Public Utilities to Execute a Change Order to Westcoast Arborists, Inc. to Perform Additional High Voltage Line Clearing and Tree Trimming At Various Locations Within the City of Ukiah in an Amount Not to Exceed $10,000 Report to Council Regarding the Purchase of Services From Roberts Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. for Electrical Work At Field 3 of the Ukiah Softball Complex in the 10,290 Notification of Bid Award to All Star Fire Equipment in the Amount of $8,005.15 To Purchase Six Turnout Coasts and Nine Pairs of Turnout Pants From Account 100.2101.690.06 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. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Discussion and Action on Krauss/Toms Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of the Marin Ventures/Walgreens Store on East Perkins Street 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution Regarding Planning Permit Fees 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Consideration and Possible Action Concerning Feasibility Study Agreement Between Mendocino County Inland Water & Power Commission and Army Corp of Engineers b. Discussion of Utilizing the Fifth Wednesday of the Month For Proclamations and Informational Items - Councilmember McCowen c. Discussion of Possible Projects For NBC's 'Three Wishes' Program 11. COUNCIL REPORTS 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 13. CLOSED SESSION 14. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JOINT WORKSHOP WITH UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 1,2005 4:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL- CITY COUNCIL a WASTEWATER WORKSHOP a. Approve Rate Structure and Authorize City Manager to Arrange For Mailing of Proposition 218 Notices and Schedule Public Hearing on Proposed Wastewater Utility Rate Changes 3. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM NO: ..-~P~C/'/::t/ , MEETING DATE: ..._~u/~)~ j/ o3.~.~ SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVE RATE STRUCTURE AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER ARRANGE FOR MAILING OF PROPOSITION 218 NOTICES AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WASTEWATER UTILITY RATE CHANGES. Bartle Wells Associates ("BWA") presented a workshop on May 18, 2005 to a joint session of the Ukiah City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation Board of Directors. BWA presented their analysis of the City and District's wastewater utility rates and the changes needed to support bond financing for the wastewater treatment plant upgrades required to meet discharge standards and maintain the utility's operating permits. BWA proposed a restructuring of the existing rate structure to include fixed and usage- based components, classify commercial accounts by usage and content of discharge, and to direct sewer billings to the associated water meter holders. Connection fees were addressed to provide funding for the capacity expansion portion of the project with rate increases funding the required treatment plant upgrades. With direction from the City and District, BWA revised their initial rate proposal to allow a more gradual introduction of increases by use of surety bonds to meet bond payment reserve requirements and fund balances for initial interest payments. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposed rate structures and authorize City Manager to arrange for mailing of notices and schedule public hearing on the proposed rate changes. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide Alternative direction to staff Citizens Advised: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Mike McCann, Finance Director and Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Candace Horsley, City Manager 1) PowerPoint Slides, 2) Rate Analysis Approved: L~_~, *"~'~~"N Candace Horsley, Ci~anage At the direction of the Council and Directors the final proposed rate structure is based on the third Alternative presented at the May 18th workshop. Including funding to begin water reuse studies and service capital improvement projects (CIP) identified by Sewer Utility management. The Consultants also advised us that the District's sliding scale connection fee is not appropriate to take to the bond market. Now that we have a definite financing goal a flat fee schedule that clearly demonstrates how that goal will be achieved is a far stronger approach. The proposal includes this fee structure. This agenda item asks for approval of the rate structure and connection fees presented herein and direction to proceed to the next step in this process by mailing notices to affected parties for a public hearing on these proposals, in accordance with Proposition 218. This agenda item seeks the approval of Council and Board for this mailing to be completed by June 3, 2005 and the scheduling of a joint City and District public hearing 45 days later, on July 20, 2005. 0 0 cD '0 cD a~0 C t~ 0.. 0 a~ '- I I c'Om 0 ~ .~,,,, 0 0 Ow- 0 0 0 0 g~ oo ~ 0 0 "0 0 0 0 E~ '~o ' I "iD 0 Il/ 0 "0 0 0 0 · ~ 0 0 0 0 O. 0 '"0 c~ 0 c"' 0 ,_ > Attachment 2 The following worksheets provide additional information supporting the rate summary presented on the PowerPoint slides. The final proposed rate structure is based on the third Alternative presented at the May 18th workshop. Including funding to begin water reuse studies and service capital improvement projects (CIP) identified by Sewer Utility management. The worksheets include information on the operating budgets, the CIP and the sewer utility cash flow, demonstrating the bond payment coverage provided by the plan. 0 0 0 ~ 0 cO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ O~ O~ O~ 0 0 0 0 E~ "00 (D~- O0 (DO (DO 0 0 0 0 0 ~lO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOI 0 CD 0 0 0 CO 0 ~ o. o 0 0 ~' 0 0 001 0 O~ 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 0 0 ~ o o 0 0 0 Oq 0 ~' 0 ~ t~ Oq ~0 o o o o o o' ~ ¥ o- ~ ,- C~ oq ~' 00 o o o o o o' o' ~ o' ,-' C~ t~. C~ CD Oq 0 0 0 0 0)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 ~ tO Oq t.O Sewer System Workshop June 1, 2005 City of Ukiah Wastewater Utility & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Proposed Sewer Connection Fee: Combined fee approach Buy-in Portion of Connection Fee Calculation Capacity Buy-in, Existing system valuation (1) Existing ESSUs (2) Estimated buy-in cost per ESSU Marginal (Portion due to future users) Connection Fee Calculation Portion of treatment plant cost allocated to future users (3) Capacity added through treatment plant upgrade (in ESSUs) City & District Connection Fee Calculation $15,207,000 10,665 $1,426 $20,250,000 2,4O0 Treatment plant project Cash contribution (ESSUs sold to date) Amount required from connection fees (marginal cost) Future ESSU allocation Minus ESSUs sold to date Remaining ESSUs available to future users Estimated marginal cost per ESSU Estimated buy-in cost per ESSU Proposed Connection Fee per ESSU City 35% 7,088,000 (953,000) 6,135,000 84O (109) 731 $8,390 1,426 $9,816 District 65% 13,163,000 (514,000) 12,649,000 1,560 (106) 1,454 $8,699 1,426 $10,125 1 - Existing system value estimated using fixed asset listing 2 - April 2005 Sewer Unit Query 3 - Allocation to future users is 32% of projected 2005 sewer revenue bond issue size BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES, 5~27~2005 Shared\Ukiah434A.1\Work Papers\Sewer Workshop June 1 2005,Connection Fee Estimate Page 4 Sewer System Workshop June 1, 2005 City of Ukiah Wastewater Utility & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Treatment Plant Project Revenue Bond Estimates & Assumptions as of May 2005 Treatment plant construction Current estimate of construction (1) Construction management Change orders Treatment plant design & engineering (1) Treatment plant planning Engineering design Office engineering during construction Financing/bond issuance costs (2) Financial advisor Bond ratings Bond counsel Disclosure counsel Trustee Printing, document shipping, bond fees & misc. cost Reserve fund surety Underwriter discount and bond insurance (3) Construction plus design & engineering contingency Financing contingency Estimated Size (Amount) of 2005 Sewer Revenue Bond Projected 2005 sewer revenue bond proceeds (4) Estimated annual bond payment (5) $45,000,000 4,800,000 2,500,000 1,500,000 3,800,000 2,000,000 40,000 25,000 60,000 30 000 6 000 15 000 89,000 950,000 2,000,000 467,000 $63,282,OOO $61,600,000 $3,563,000 1 - B&C May 2005 cost estimate (detailed in attached construction cost estimates table) 2 - BWA conservative estimate of financing costs as 1% of construction & other project costs 3 - BW^ conservative estimate of U/W discount and bond insurance as 1.5% of projected issue size 4 - Projected bond proceeds equal issue size minus issuance costs 5 - BWA conservative estimate based 40 year term sewer revenue bond at an interest rate of 4.75% The interest rate used is an assumption based on current rates; Interest rates are subject to change BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES, 5~27~2005 Shared\Ukiah434A.1\Sewer Workshop June 1 2005,2005 Revenue Bond Assumptions Page 5 City of Ukiah VVastewater Utility & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Projected Sewer Operations Cash Flow Sewer S~/stem Workshop June 1, 2005 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Existing sewer units (1) New sewer units - City (2) New sewer units - District (2) Total sewer units Beginning fund balance (3) Debt reserve fund (4) Total beginning fund balances Revenue Operatin~ revenue Sewer service charges (5) Connection fees - City (6) Connection fees - District (6) Interest (7) Other Total operating revenues Bond proceeds Rate stabilization Total revenue Expenses Operatin.q expenses Salaries & employee benefits (8) Operations & maintenance (9) Other Total operating expenses Capital expenses Treatment plant project (10) Capital expenditures (11) Total capital Debt service Existing debt service (12) New debt service Total debt service Total expenses Ending fund balances Operating fund Bond/debt reserve Total ending fund balances Reserve Fund Targets O&M (45 days) Reserve Debt/Bond Reserve Total Minimum Reserve Fund Targets Total Minimum Reserve Fund Targets Met Debt Service Coverage (Min 1.20 x) 10,665 10,725 10,785 10,845 10,905 20 20 20 20 20 4._~0 40 40 40 40 10,725 10,765 10,845 10,905 10,965 $4,000,000 $41,457,000 $22,160,000 $1,987,000 $1,027,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 $4,425,000 $41,882,000 $22,585,000 $2,412,000 $1,452,000 3,037,000 4,839,000 5,453,000 6,665,000 7,802,000 196,000 203,000 210,000 218,000 225,000 405,000 419,000 434,000 449,000 465,000 111,000 1,047,000 565,000 60,000 36,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 3,769,000 6,529,000 6,684,000 7,415,000 8,552,000 61,600,000 3,250,000 68,619,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 500,000 7,529,000 7,934,000 7,915,000 8,552,000 1,126,000 1,182,000 1,241,000 1,303,000 1,368,000 1,544,000 1,590,000 1,638,000 1,691,000 1,746,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 2,695,000 2,798,000 2,906,000 3,022,000 3,143,000 20,138,000 18,923,000 18,923,000 1,625,000 651,000 975,000 1,300,000 21,763,000 19,574,000 19,898,000 1,300,000 1,951,000 1,951,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 3,029,000 3,029,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 3,454,000 3,454,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 31,162,000 26,826,000 28,107,000 8,875,000 9,147,000 41,457,000 22,160,000 1,987,000 1,027,000 432,000 425,000 425,000 4251000 425,000 425,000 41,882,000 22,585,000 2,412,000 1,452,000 857,000 337,000 350,000 363,000 378,000 393,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 762,000 775,000 788,000 803,000 818,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.25 1.37 1.24 1.21 1.33 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES, 5/27/2005 Shared\Ukiah434A.1\Sewer Workshop June 1 2005,Projected Cash Flow Projected Cash Flow Pages 6 and 7 City of Ukiah Wastewater Utility & Uki, Projected Sewer Operations Cash Flo Sewer S~/stem Workshop June 1, 2005 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Existing sewer units (1) New sewer units - City (2) New sewer units - District (2) Total sewer units Beginning fund balance (3) Debt reserve fund (4) Total beginning fund balances Revenue Operatin.q revenue Sewer service charges (5) Connection fees - City (6) Connection fees - District (6) Interest (7) Other Total operating revenues Bond proceeds Rate stabilization Total revenue Expenses ODeratin_a expenses Salaries & employee benefits (8) Operations & maintenance (9) Other Total operating expenses Capital expenses Treatment plant project (10) Capital expenditures (11) Total capital Debt service Existing debt service (12) New debt service Total debt service Total expenses Ending fund balances Operating fund Bond/debt reserve Total ending fund balances Reserve Fund Targets O&M (45 days) Reserve Debt/Bond Reserve Total Minimum Reserve Fund Targets Total Minimum Reserve Fund Targets Met Debt Service Coverage (Min 1.20 x) 10,965 11,025 11,085 11,145 11,205 20 20 20 20 20 40 40 40 40 40 11,025 11,085 11,145 11,205 11,265 $432,000 $1,544,000 $2,694,000 $3,881,000 $5,103,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 $857,000 $1,969,000 $3,119,000 $4,306,000 $5,528,000 7,919,000 8,038,000 8,159,000 8,281,000 8,405,000 233,000 241,000 250,000 259,000 268,000 481,000 498,000 515,000 533,000 552,000 21,000 49,000 78,000 108,000 138,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 8,679,000 8,852,000 9,029,000 9,209,000 9,392,000 8,679,000 8,852,000 9,029,000 9,209,000 9,392,000 1,436,000 1,508,000 1,583,000 1,662,000 1,745,000 1,798,000 1,852,000 1,908,000 1,965,000 2,024,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 3,264,000 3,391,000 3,523,000 3,660,000 3,803,000 250,000 258,000 266,000 274,000 282,000 250,000 258,000 266,000 274,000 282,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 3,628,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 4,053,000 7,567,000 7,702,000 7,842,000 7,987,000 8,138,000 1,544,000 2,694,000 3,881,000 5,103,000 6,357,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 1,969,000 3,119,000 4,306,000 5,528,000 6,782,000 408,000 424,000 440,000 458,000 475,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 833,000 849,000 865,000 883,000 900,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES, 5/27/2005 Shared\Ukiah434A. 1\Sewer Workshop June 1 2005,Projected Cash Flow Projected Cash Flow Pages 6 and 7 Whel. e~ls, hate violenee has beeo]ne a dally oc~wrenee and is increasing at epidemic rates across the nation; ~V-he~, history h~ tragically taught us what happens when people stand by and allow acts ofviolenee and hatred to oecur; Where., people often feel isolated, without hope, and helpless to do anytldng individually to end hate violence; WhePe~, the people' of many conunnnities such as Billings, Montana; Sacramento, Redding, and Newark, California; and Rockford Illinois, by standing together, were suceessful in opposing racist, anti-Semitie, and homophobic hate acts eommitted against their neighbors; ~le~, the stories of Northern California eonnnunities saying "no" to hate are told in the doemnentary: "Not In Our Town Northern California"; We resolve to stand together with aH people of good faith across the emmtry and support this national effort to push back the rising tide of hate violence by eneo~waging our diverse eonummity to join thousands of ~t~ others to say with one voice, "Not In Our Town, Not In Our Nation." · '" ': ............ ~:~"~'~i:!'~'~-7.:''' ~' '"")'"~T ~ ..'. :'. ' -'~ i*,!'~- '* i i:.:*' ' '' . *. Whereas, civic and religious organiT~ztions nationwide have used "Not .n wdnerable to a climate of hate and to learn ways to prevent hate activity in their eonummities. Therefore, be it resolved, the Ukiah City Council,' in keeping with the principle of equal civil rights for aH, uneqnivoeally opposes any manifestation ofhatred and prejudiee towards any group or individual. We hereby proelahn J~me as "Hate F~ee Awareness Month in Ukinh, California" MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on March 16, 2005, the notice for which being legally noticed, at 6:30 p.m. Roll was taker Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Ba Staff present: Community Services Director Associate Planner Lohse, Finance Director McCann, City Services Supervisor Sangiacomo, Planning Director Ziemianek, and City Clerk Ulvila. and the following ~'and Mayor Ashiku. Manager Horsley, Rapport, Community c Utilities Director 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. PROCLAMATIONS 3a. Sexual Assault Awareness M Councilmember Rodin read the Assault Awareness Month in the citizens, and encourage everyone's pa Mile In Her Shoes", on Apri ith ~d corr ing April 2005 as Sexual led this observance to all April 27 and "Walk A Paul Cornado, Vice Project Sanctuary ,cussed ~e Boa rams Project Sanctuary spoke on behalf of ,d. Christine Hance, Dire the Proclamation. 1 4a. al Meeti M/S City Cc meeting as Councilme Crane, ABSTAIN: March 2. 2005 Special Meeting minutes of the March 2, 2005 carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: ;owen, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. in. ABSENT: None. 4. ITES 4b. S Meeti March 14. 2005 M/S Rodin/Baldwin approving the Special Meeting minutes of the March 14, 2005 City Council meeting as presented, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4c. Regular Meeting of March 16~ 2005 Councilmember Rodin recommended a correction to page 10, the second paragraph should read, "In response to Councilmember Baldwin, staff clarified that City wells 5 and 6 are included ..." Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 1 of 10 Councilmember McCowen recommended a correction to page 12, the first sentence in the second paragraph should read, "Councilmember Baldwin reported he attended an Inland Water and Power Commission meeting ..." Councilmember Baldwin stated for the record that he wished to clarify the first sentence in the third paragraph on page 6. He stated that "he ch~ ed the argument that single family homeowners are more concerned about nc from aircraft than multi-family residences", however, he did not have the to rewrite his comment to make a correction to the minutes. M/S McCowen/Baldwin approving the minutes of meeting as corrected, carried by the following Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor ABSENT: None. 1 35 City Council vote: AYE~ NOES: None. N: None. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Baldwin requested discussion. regular agenda for It was the "6a" as item "1 Of" on the agenda. M/S McCowen/Bal~ follows: "b" "g" of the Consent Calendar as b. R, c. d. e, g. Ied Ordin To 3% R-3 Rec( Pre County Reported to th~ Computer Equipment and Printers Amending the City of Ukiah's Police-Only PERS Re g APN 003-050-29, 50, 66, 85, and 86 to g Consultant Services Contract For the Impact Report for the Ukiah and Millview Rights Permits/Licenses Amendment Project; Council Regarding the Rental of Space From Doug Adams dba: Skate City, For the Use of the Building For the 2004-05 Youth Basketball Program in the Amount of $5,800; Approved Lease Agreement for Hangar "F" At the Ukiah Regional Airport. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None. Crane, None. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Bill Randolph, Ukiah, expressed his concern with regard to the planned removal of redwood trees on the proposed Walgreens project site located on Perkins Street. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 2 of 10 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. Adoption of Resolution Establishing The Water Rate Schedule For The Fiscal Years 2004-2005 (Commencing May 17 2005) Through 2008-2009 Mr. Doug Dove, Principal at Bartle Wells Associates (BWA), advised that the City's water rates have not increased in about 10 years and there are some large projects that are pending or being implemented that need revenue in order presented a Water Utility Rate Structure & Connection Fee and noted the purpose of the plan is to update the City' generate the revenue necessary to support bond financinc upgrades required by the California Department of renewing the water utility's operating permit. be completed. He ) to Council ,~r Rate Schedule to water treatment plant as a condition of Ms. Tatiana Olea, Financial Analyst at Bartle tried to minimize the impacts to the rate five-year period. She discussed the need capacity to Ukiah to enable it to meet peak dema fire prevention efforts. BWA has asse~ ed a financ Associates, that BWA phasing the rate in e over a additior .ge ~mmer months and support 1 for the City to consider. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:55 p Bill Randolph inquired a~, growth, and how much U~ consideration of users. Mayor Ashiku ex will be able to addre that a worksl tim~ s planned in the near future and BWA PUBLIC p.m, Di~ funds from this i pumping water trc Update provided by BWA. It was noted that the !ay back bonds and provide for the necessary It is approximately a $15 million project. In response Baldwin with regard to a letter from the State Departme~ ervices, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek discussed the July 1, 2001 ~cerning an inspection audit and, at that time, the State Department of Health vices found a number of potential problems. He read excerpts from the audit concerning compliance needed at the water plant at that time. Director Ziemianek continued to discuss the State Department of Health Services and Title 22 requirements. M/S Rodin/Baldwin adopting Resolution 2005-41 establishing the water rate schedules for the Fiscal Years 2004-2005 through 2008-2009, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. aw PUBLIC HEARING Approval of Menton/Ruff Site Development Permit No. 04-30 and Rocha/Ruff Site Development Permit 04-33 Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 3 of 10 Planning Director Stump advised that Mr. Estok Menton and Antonio Rocha and their architect, Mr. Richard Ruff, have applied for separate Site Development Permits to construct a total of 32 apartment units on four contiguous parcels located at the end of Apple Avenue. Associate Planner Lohse described the Menton/Ruff Ro( on-site recreation planned for the project, and discussed Staff's the project. Planning Staff concluded that the a Development Permits will allow the development of the in the 2004 General Plan Housing Element. The concluded that because of the project design and the changes to the setting will not be sig found to be consistent with other policies of standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code, and Master Plan. C The :iah General Pla~ riteria of th~ projects; reviewed al review of the proposed Site ill housing envisioned lion and Staff have ions of approval, las also been applicable Airport PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:11 Rena Grayson advised that she lives with additional people moving into ap~ there be an apartment man the R~ do not disturb the neigh into traffic, and the :ha and voiced her concern a recommendation to ensure that tenants pulling out of driveways Richard Ruff, arc~ features, such as a disi ;ed the project design and special Council Mt ~erty and the emergency access at the northwest corner of the could be realigned to be in line with the cul- Mr. Ruff di, Ihink it wou e possible. Councilmembe~ there is access. inquired about Mr. Rocha's gate in the area and if Mr. Ruff was of the opinion that pedestrians would be able to cross there to get to State Street. Councilmember McCowen explained that he would prefer that the railroad not be accessible from the Rocha property. He went on to discuss sidewalks on Apple Avenue and if it would be possible to install a sidewalk on a short segment by the cul- de-sac. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:21 p.m. Discussion followed with regard to the installation of sidewalks, traffic mitigation elements, the possibility of a stop sign at the corner of Apple and Cherry Avenue, Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 4 of 10 installing speed bumps, referring these matters to the Traffic Engineering Committee, and have the Committee provide a recommendation to the City Council within four months. Incorporating native or drought resistant species in their landscaping plan was also recommended. M/S McCowen/Rodin approving Site Development Permits No. the addition of a stop sign at the corner of Apple and sidewalk adjacent to the Rocha property and to refer the ' are required on Apple Avenue to the Traffic Engineeri~ Engineering Committee recommends to the City necessary, the applicants would be required to bumps at their expense within six months of comp inst~ the project and 04-33 with and completion of speed bumps If the Traffic bumps are n of the speed Discussion followed with regard to the approval, and referring traffic related concerns review and recommendation to the City Council. mpacts the area, itions of ~neering Cc for Motion carried, based on the the Ukiah Planning Commission, Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Re ABSTAIN: None. Conditi( foil roll recommended by call vote: AYES: ku. NOES: None. M/S Rodin/Baldwin 04-30 and 04-33, cf McCowen, Rodin, ABSENT: None by the ve De roi r Ashii prepared for the project numbers vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. 1 8c. lion of R Docl Community Council a Grant (CDBG) fun~ Dining Facility. In 000 and Au1 ts For a Two Year Allocation .lock Grant Funds in the Amount of ~er to Execute All Related DeKnoblough explained that on March 2, 2005, a two-year allocation of Community Development Block of $1,000,000 on behalf of Plowshares Community o proceed, a resolution is required authorizing the application and designating the City Manager to sign all related documents. He discussed changes to the resolution based on the recommendation of the grant writer. Mary Buckley, Director of Plowshares, discussed the source of some of their fund raising efforts which has been on-going for three years. They currently have $850,000 and appreciate the City's support. Discussion followed with regard to: · How the amounts itemized in the resolution were calculated · 10% setaside for homeless services and working with the Ford Street Project to provide evening meals at the Buddy Elder Center. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 5 of 10 Plowshares making outdoor meals with a barbeque or cooker The possibility of requiring that $60,000 be allocated between Plowshares and the Ford Street Project, per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two organizations. Plowshares' relationship with the Ford Street Project was also discussed. M/S Baldwin/Rodin adopting Resolution 2005-42 approwng and contract execution and any amendments thereto from State of California CDBG Program for Plowshares for a the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. N~ for funding ~eral Allocation of the allocation, carried by Rodin, Baldwin, 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9a. Discussion and Possible Intr, An Ordi~ of the City of Ukiah Amending Vari, Contained in Division 4, Entit Finance Director McCann advised in working construction bond financing studies resultin~ Rate Schedule, decisions were m~ language of the City Code contained stated that they do not chanc language. nce of the Council the Ukiah Code onsultants on water rate and including the Water ain clarifications in the Entitled: "Water". He but clarify the M/S Rodin call vote: AYES: Ashiku. NOES: None. :roducing Only; carried by the following roll Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor ! None. City the C Ukiah Divisio hapter 1, enl the Ordinance: "An Ordinance of the City Council of s sections of the Ukiah City Code contained in M/S Rodin Councilmemb~ ABSTAIN: None introdu( Ordinance; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. lone 9. UNFINISHED ;INESS 9b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Mid-Year 2004-05 Budget Amendment Finance Director McCann explained that this Mid-Year Budget Amendment is an opportunity to address any issues with financial implications which have occurred since the budget was adopted or are anticipated to arise throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. He reported meeting with Councilmembers Crane and McCowen to discuss various items in the budget amendments. M/S McCowen/Rodin approving Mid-Year Amendment to the 2004-05 Budget as specified in the Staff Report to Council and attached 2004-05 Mid-Year Budget Amendment-Summary of Expenditures; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 6 of 10 Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. There was a request from Council to hear item "10c" next on the agenda. Approved by a consensus of the Council. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Award of Bid to KG Walters for Construction of Improvement Project in the Amount of Public Utilities Director Ziemianek advised that at meeting, Council authorized the City Manager to the Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project Construction Company. He explained the criter Company for this project and noted they Improvement Project in the amount of $7,1 71 construction cost estimate of $6,741,300 was construction costs, which very thi received from KG Walters." Ier Treatment Plant 2005 City Council a contract for Pro h KG Walters g KG Wal :onstruction 2 of the System to SPH, pdated reflect recent inflation in bid amount of $7,172,000 M/S McCowen/Baldwin awarding bi¢ Treatment Plant Im roject following roll call vote: Ashiku. NOES: None )u of the Water , carried by the Baldwin, and Mayor er Crane. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSIN! lOa. R~ :uest Profl program Empire Off the City's Service= explained and m~ Associ~ an. similar services er to otiate and Execute A Contra the Redwood Empire Officials ort Lea ue Officials and Scorekee Sangiacomo discussed his Staff Report with obtaining sports officials. In order to meet he recommended the use of the Redwood ) to perform officiating and scorekeeping for ~,ball programs. The Association currently provides activities throughout Mendocino County. M/S McCow, )proving authorization for the City Manager to negotiate and execute a professional services contract with the Redwood Empire Officials Association for adult sport league officials and scorekeepers, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10b. Adoption of Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Opposing Suspension of Proposition 42 Funding Phil Dow, Executive Director of Mendocino County of Governments (MCOG), reported that Proposition 42 suspensions to date have rendered $1.8 million unavailable to MCOG for programming State Transportation Improvement Program projects in Mendocino County, with an additional $1.2 million becoming unavailable if Proposition 42 is suspended in Fiscal Year 2005-2006. He recommended the City Council adopt a Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 7 of 10 resolution that is intended to send a message to state legislators that the transportation community desperately needs funding and that the practice of balancing the state budget with money the electorate said should go to transportation should be terminated. MCOG and the other three incorporated cities in Mendocino County have already passed similar resolutions. M/S McCowen/Rodin adopting Resolution 2005-43 of the Ci Ukiah opposing suspension of Proposition 42 funds by carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: of the City of ialifornia Legislature, McCowen, Rodin, NT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10d. Recei of Audited Financial Finance Director McCann advised that the be changed to 2003-2004. He briefly review6 explained that this is an unqualified opinion and Fiscal Year 200 Year n the Staff Auditors' findings. should and M/S McCowen/Crane accepting Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2004, Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rc ABSTAIN: None. ABS :he Audi' the nancial Statements for the g roll call vote: AYES: NOES: None. 10. NEW 10e. Approve ion of Financial Au ' Amount Not the Finance ext~ the the coming time urces in th6 current ~ar on a ti management The Fir the next fiscal ye itract Davis Hammon & Co. CPA For Ihe Year Ended June 30~ 2005 In An The er To n ommended the City Council approve a one year ~ntract with Davis Hammon & Company for City 'inance Department will be committing significant of a budget for the new year, closing out the ly basis and filling several key positions vacated by :e Department plans to issue a Request for Proposal for M/S Rodin/McCowe~ Ihorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement with Davis Hammon & Co. for fiscal year 2004/2005 financial auditing services in an amount not to exceed $33,425.00 ($23,825 for City services, $4,600 for Redevelopment Agency services, and up to $5,000 for changes in audit scope), carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10f. (formerly 6a.) Adoption of Resolution Approving City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for 2005 Councilmember Baldwin inquired about the process for identifying qualified contractors. City Clerk Ulvila and City Attorney Rapport explained the informal and formal bidding Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 8 of 10 process and it was noted that the City is required by law to update this list each year and staff must follow a specific procedure. M/S Baldwin/McCowen adopting Resolution 2005-44 approving the City of Ukiah Qualified Contractors List for 2005, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor hiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember McCowen suggested agendizing regarding the Wilderness Bill, and whether the City regarding this matter. d possible action public hearings Councilmember Rodin reported that she Supervisors regarding the Wildness Bill. The however, they felt it wasn't the Board's busin~ regarding the matter. She .uncil take provide a letter of support for the o reque: matter. a meet of the of supporters bill; est local public hearings ne action as the Board and ocal public hearings on the Councilmember Baldwin hearing forum two ined the bill in a public Councilmember resolution for In recommended for cut that Council also ommen rvices. m on ca Council discussion and adoption of a explained that this service is budget budget. He also suggested in the City limits. :ently; he s~ vacated Ist savings. the City Ma '. that since there have been a lot of City positions a subcommittee to review those jobs being McCowen and Crane agreed to meet with City Manager ned that the Personnel Department evaluates positions and job duties as :hange over time. That information is then taken to the employee unions for t consideration. She reported that in the 1990's a classification and compensation study was conducted for the City, based on job duties and requirements, based on a classification system. Councilmember McCowen also reported that he attended a MCOG meeting and he discussed some of the upcoming transportation bills coming up which further suspends Proposition 42 funding for the next two years and is described as a budget reform measure by the state. Councilmember Rodin reported on a letter from the Ukiah Valley Trail Group with regard to possible vehicular access on the eastside of Lake Mendocino. The Group does not support motorized or bike traffic on the trails. She inquired of the City Attorney if there is legal action pending regarding this matter. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 9 of 10 It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to look into this matter. Councilmember Rodin discussed a letter from the Mendocino Employers Council regarding the City's current water policy and when and why it was adopted. She requested Council direct the City Manager to write a letter to Employers Council advising them of the upcoming water workshop. Councilmember Baldwin reported that he spent 10 d~ the smog in that city. He recommended Council con: consider the inversion layers of the Ukiah Valley. o City and discussed methods and Mayor Ashiku recommended that in the future. Manager of suggested agenda items. s shoul ise the City Councilmember Rodin reported that she (MTA) board meeting and they are a $300 services. ~ndocino Transit Authority and may have to reduce 11. CITY MANGER City Manager Horsley various permits and pro~ hearing will be sch( She inquired of C( CLERK RI that e repl ,hen to ie date with information on Council meeting a public 'il 19th there will be a Water Workshop. Golf Workshop. It was the consensus 3p on May 4th. 12. Cl No CI( ession. 13. ~RNMENT There bein( the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City C Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 6, 2005 Page 10 of 10 ITEM NO. 6a DATE: June 1,2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER TO WESTCOAST ARBORISTS, INC. TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL HIGH VOLTAGE LINE CLEARING AND TREE TRIMMING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 Included in the 2004/05 Budget, Account No. 800.3728.250.000 was $50,000 for tree trimming. Westcoast Arborist was awarded the contract October 20, 2004 in the amount of $40,000. Staff is requesting West Coast Arborist to perform additional necessary high voltage line clearing and tree trimming in an amount not to exceed the $10,000 remaining in the 2004/2005 budget. Policy Resolution No. 13, authorizes the responsible Department Head with approval of the City Manager to issue change orders not to exceed 10 percent of the original contract sum or $5,000 whichever is greater provided that no change, when added to the original contract sum exceeds the amount budgeted for the project. The change order will exceed $5000, therefore Council approval is required. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Director of Public Utilities to execute a change order to Westcoast Arborist, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $10,000. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Choose not to approve the recommended action and provide direction to staff Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED:~___~ A~,...,~/"~- C~dace Horsley, City~anager ITEM NO. 6b DATE: June 1, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF SERVICES FROM ROBERTS MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC FOR ELECTRICAL WORK AT FIELD 3 OF THE UKIAH SOFTBALL COMPLEX IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,290. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the purchase of services for electrical work at Field 3 of the Ukiah Softball Complex. 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 including the construction of a third softball field. As part of the construction of the field, an electrical contractor was needed for the installation of wiring and disconnects for the new field lights. In accordance with City of Ukiah purchasing policies, the City's purchasing supervisor issued a request for bid to all electrical contractors on the City's qualified bidders list. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report regarding the purchase of services from Roberts Mechanical & Electrical, Inc for electrical work at Field 3 of the Ukiah Softball Complex in the amount of $10,290. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A 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 Candace Horsley, City I~anager Three companies responded to the request for bid by the May 13th deadline with Roberts Mechanical & Electrical being the Iow bidder in the amount of $10,290. Refer to the following table for a complete summary of bids. Bid Summary Table Company Amount Roberts Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. $10,290 Ukiah Electric $12,748 Busch Construction & Electric $21,901 The cost of the electrical work 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 SUMMARY ITEM NO. DATE: June 1,2005 REPORT SUBJECT: Notification of bid award to All Star Fire Equipment in the amount of $8,005.15 to purchase six turnout coats and nine pair of turnout pants from account 100.2101.690.006. In order to be OSHA compliant and to protect the safety of Fire Department Personnel, the department is required to provide protective turnout gear. New turnouts are needed to replace the unsafe worn out ones. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file notification. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: n/a Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief Prepared by: Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments' N/A APPROVED: ams:ASRCityCouncil Agendasummary AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO: DATE: June 1, 2005 REPORT SUB.1ECT: DI'SCUSSI'ON AND ACTTON ON KRAUSS/TOMS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMI'SISON CONDITI'ONAL APPROVAL OF THE MARTN VENTURES/WALGREENS STORE ON EAST PERKI'NS STREET SUMMARY: On April 20, 2005, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered the appeal filed by Mr. Krauss and Mr. Toms regarding the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Walgreen's store Site Development Permit project on East Perkins Street. After hearing from the public, discussing the project, and considering the Planning Commission's action, the Council concluded that there was not sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and design of the structure, and that it was too box-like and uninteresting in its appearance. The Council then provided design suggestions and direction to the applicants for improving the design. It also suggested that the applicants fund a second professional arborist report on the Redwood trees, and that Staff manage it so that the report would be objective and unbiased. The matter was continued to allow the applicant's time to consider the Council's suggestions. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Uphold the Planning Commission's action subject to the revised design of the building and landscaping, as proposed and submitted by the applicants. ALTERNATZVE COUNCI'L POLI'CY OPTTON: 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. . Revised Elevation Drawings Arborist's Report prepared by John Phillips, dated May 8, 2005 Diagram showing the location of the redwood trees and their relationship to the proposed development project Air photograph of the site showing the redwood trees Night photograph of the lighted tower logo sign May 4, 2005 Agenda Summary Report APPROVED: I ._~.~, ~~~__.~(r~ 'rv~nager 1 Cand~ce H°rsley, City ]:n response to the Council's suggestions, the applicant's have re-worked the design of the structure and believe that they have fulfilled the direction of the Council. The purpose of this Agenda ]:tem is take final action on the appeal filed by Mr. Krauss and Mr. Toms. BACKGROUND: 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. On May 4, 2005, the Council conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal filed by Mr. Krauss and Mr. Toms. After the hearing, the Council concluded that the design of the structure was too box-like and ordinary, and that it should be re-worked into a more unique looking retail structure. I~IAY 4TM C~'Y COUNCI:L DZRECI'I:ON AND RESPONSE FROI~I APPL:I:CANTS: Listed below are the suggestions made by the City and the responses from the applicants: 1. The council wanted a Walgreen's store that would be unique to Ukiah rather than one that looked like other Walgreen's stores or typical chain retail store structures. Applicant Response: The applicant's believe that the redesign of the building creates a unique structure unlike any other Walgreens. 2. The fa~;ade was too box-like and basic. Add knee braces under the eves of the tower roof and canopy roofs and/or add more windows or other treatments to the elevations to soften the box-like appearance and design. Applicant Response: The eves of the tower roof have been extended out and knee-bracing has been added as suggested by the Council. A cornice has been added to the fiat roof line that will extend out and be supported by mock double knee-bracing above each pilaster. The cornice elevation has been stepped down on both the east (Hospital Drive) and south (East Perkins Street) elevations to "break" the fiat roof line. Arched steel trellis's have been added to the windows and spaces between the pilasters to break-up the massing of the structure and to add a more unique and interesting appearance. 3. Add a treatment to the top of the fiat roof-line to make it appear like a hipped roof. The goal would be to make the building less box-like, and less like other standard chain retailer designs (subsequent direction provided at the May :L8t~ meeting provided the applicant's more flexibility in regard to the roof treatment). Applicant Response: As noted above, a cornice has been added to the flat roof line that will extend out and be supported by mock double knee-bracing above each pilaster. The cornice elevation has been stepped down on both the east and south elevations to "break" the monotony of the fiat roof line. 4. Consider extending the exterior"porches" under the canopies from 8-feet to lO-feet. Applicant Response: The exterior"porches" under the canopies are currently 8-feet wide. Extending them another 2-feet would require modifying the site plan to reduce landscaping planter widths or seek exceptions for the width of driveway isles and the length of parking spaces. The applicants would prefer to maintain the width of landscaping planters and amount of plantings and not seek exceptions to the driveway isle width and parking space length requirements. They believe the 8-foot wide areas under the canopies will provide ample area for a few benches and pedestrian/wheelchair access. 5. Extend the roof eves of the tower. Applicant's Response: The applicant's have extended the eves of the roof tower and added knee-bracing underneath as suggested by the Council. 6. Eliminate the back-lit logo sign in the tower. Staff asked for and received a night photo of a Walgreens with the lighted tower component (Attachment No. 5). We concluded that the lighted tower element may work fine in a large complex urban environment, but seemed to be out of place in Ukiah's rural city setting. We suggested that the applicant's consider eliminating the backlight component and let the neon mortar and pestle logo sign stand on its own. With a dark backdrop, the logo may actually become more distinctive without the lighting behind it. Applicant's Response: The applicants are discussing this issue with representatives of Walgreen's, and Staff has not received a response at the time of Agenda Summary Report publication. It is assumed that the applicants will be prepared to discuss this design component at the .]une ist hearing. 7. Do not extend the "24-hour", "Photo", and "Pharmacy" signs over the length of the wall elevations. Applicant's Response: The applicants have revised the signage on the south (East Perkins Street) and east (Hospital Drive) elevations of the building to eliminate the photo sign and bunch the H/a/~areen's and24-hourPharmacysignage in one location rather than spreading it out over the length of the elevation. 8. Add benches under the canopy. Applicant's Response: The applicants are willing to add benches under the canopies provided they can be situated so as not to obstruct access or violate American Disabilities Act requirements. 9. Work with Staff to select different species for the street trees (no Raywood Ash). Applicant's Response: The applicants are now proposing Chinese Pistache rather than the Raywood Ash. The Chinese Pistache is consistent with the suggestions made in the City EDAW Study. 10. Work with Staff to evaluate other colors for the building; consider the colors recommended by Ms. Pruden (green, gray-green, brick red and cream). Applicant's Response: The applicant's have worked with Staff to develop an alternative color scheme for the structure. They are now proposing a dark tan for the main building color with a reddish-brown color for the brick-like wainscoting and pilasters. A dark sage green is now proposed for accent colors, which would include the arches and square tiles above the pilasters. :t:l. Use roofing material more consistent with the original depot building (concrete tile with a flat profile). Applicant's Response: The applicants have selected a flat profile concrete roof tile rather than the earlier proposed mission style curved tile consistent with the Council's direction. It would be a reddish-brown to match the brick-like wainscoting and pilasters. 12. Tn addition, the Council suggested that Marin Ventures fund an objective second opinion/arborist's report on the redwood trees. The applicant's agreed and funded a second study of the trees (attached). The City arranged for the report to be prepared by its contract arborist, John Phillips. Mr. Phillips was asked to: 1. Evaluate the current health of the trees. 2. Are any problems correctable? 3. Can the trees be protected during construction? 4. Are there any potentially negative consequences for future development, existing public infrastructure, and the trees if the project is constructed and the trees are retained? 5. Please prepare an objective analysis and independent professional recommendations based on standard arborist practices. Hr. Phillips Findinqs: Mr. Philips found the redwood trees to be in fair to good health. The only significant health issue he identified was a structural one - many of the trees have multiple trunks, which are considered a structural defect and can pose safety hazards. He indicated that it may be possible to correct this structural problem by removing all but one of the trunks. This may or may not work depending upon how many branches the retained truck would have. He also indicated that if the trees are to be retained, they would have to be protected during construction. This would involve installing a perimeter fence around the dripline (crown) of the tree that could not be disturbed. He also indicates that in order to retain the trees and provide them a reasonable chance for optimal health, the entire area under and near the trees that is undeveloped would need to be preserved. The proposed project would significantly reduce this tree growing area. Finally, rvlr. Philips indicates that if water sources exist nearby, the tree roots will find them and could cause damage to public infrastructure. Applicant's Response: The applicants continue to have strong concerns about safety and liability, particularly in regard to Mr. Phillips comments about the structural issues with the many of the trees. They point out that maintaining the existing swath of growing area for the trees would cause the elimination of all the parking spaces along the Hospital Drive side of the property, which would result in the project being severely under parked. Tn fact, the row of trees falls in the middle of the row of proposed parking spaces. The building cannot be moved to the west because the narrow space along the west side of the building is the minimum necessary for delivery trucks to circulate. The applicants have indicated that they have explored many options in an attempt to retain some or all of the trees. Given the small size of the site, the minimum size of the building, the required parking and landscaping, and the large area needed for the trees to flourish, the applicants could not identify a way to retain the trees. As an alternative, they have suggested that perhaps they could donate redwood trees to be planted to form a grove along Gibson Creek adjacent to the emerging skate park across East Perkins Street from the site. The applicants will be prepared to discuss the tree issues at the June 1~ hearing. CONCLUSTON: At the April 20, 2005 appeal hearing, the Council concluded that the design of the proposed Walgreens structure could be improved and provided suggestions to the applicants. The Council also concluded that arranging for a second opinion on the redwood trees was prudent, and the applicants agreed to fund it. The applicants modified the design in a number of ways suggested by the Council. These include extending the tower eves and adding knee-bracing, adding a staggered cornice with mock knee- bracing to soften the fiat roof element, adding arched features, modifying the colors, modifying the tree selection along Perkins Street, reducing the signage on the building walls and rearranging it to not spread along their entire wall lengths, replacing the mission style roof tile with a fiat profile concrete tile to match the original train depot, and adding benches under the canopies where possible. Tn Staff's opinion, the design has been improved and the proposed commercial structure is less box-like and more interesting. The applicants funded and Staff arranged for a second professional arborist report on the Hospital Drive Redwood trees to determine their health and viability, their ability to survive the construction of the building and related improvements, and the long term outlook if they were to be retained. The arborist determined that the trees were in fair to good health, but many needed to have their multiple trunks removed, which may or may not ensure their long term health. Tn addition, the arborist concluded that in order for the trees to flourish, they need a wide growing area equal to or greater than their canopies. The trees are situated within the proposed parking stalls along the Hospital Drive frontage. To provide the recommended growing area, these parking spaces would need to be eliminated and the project would fall significantly short of the required parking. Because of these parking requirements, truck circulation needs, building setback requirements, the pharmacy drive-thru, the relatively small size of the commercial property, and other factors, the applicants have been unable to find a way to save the trees. As an alternative, they have suggested that they could donate redwood trees for the development of a grove along Gibson Creek adjacent to the skatepark property. CZ'fY COUNC]:L OPll:ONS: Ultimately, the Council must take action on the Krauss/Toms appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Walgreens project. Prior to doing so, the Council should: 1. Evaluate the revised design of the project and determine if it fulfills the direction provided at the April 20~ meeting. . Discuss the arborist reports, public testimony, the applicant's response to the trees, and the relationship between the trees and the layout and design of the project. Determine if it is feasible and reasonable to require preservation of the trees. The Council has a number of the decision-making options: 1. Uphold the Commission's action. Uphold the Commission's action subject to the revised design of the building and landscaping, as proposed and submitted by the applicants. . Overturn the Commission's action, make the necessary findings of fact, and deny the project. RECOMMENDA'11:ON: After the conduct of a public hearing, move to: . Uphold the Planning Commission's action subject to the revised design of the building and landscaping, as proposed and submitted by the applicants. Affachment # iii i __ ® ®®¢ ®®®® ®®®~©©®®®®©®©® ®®® · · ,,g ,P'L Z C- May 8, 2005 Charley Stump city of t ah 300 SeminarT Ave. Ukiah, Ca. 95482 Dear CharleY, . RECEIVEP FlAY 2O05 Attachment #. JOHN M. PHILLIPS ARBORIST, 3rd GENERATION At your request, I submit my report regarding the redwood trees along Hospital Drive. This is in reference to a proposed development adjacent to the trees. My assignment is to answer the questions you have asked in the document titled "Scope of Work...'. I will address these in the order listed. 1.Current health of the trees. Overall, I rate their health as fair to good, given the site they are growing in. One tree is noticeably smaller than the others, but the cause for this is not likely SOmething that will affect the others. The only significant problem is a strUctural one, which relates to health if the structure fails. Some of the.trees have multiple trtmks. Where these trtmks join, the structure is defective and lends to splitting apart. 2.Are the problems correctable?' It may be possible to correct the defect of the multi-thinks by removing all but one. Each tree would have to be evaluated to see if the trunk to be retained would have a decent distribution of branches. Overall health could be improved and maintained by mowing the underst°ry plants and mulching the entire area. The preferred mulch would be twig and leaf material as generated by a brush chipper. The mulch should be approx. 4 inches deep. 3.Can the trees be protected during construction? The plans provided show the retention of only one tree (at the NE comer). It is not dear to me h'om the drawing if the crown of the tree extends beyond the proposed hardscape. If it dOes, then that means that construction will take place under the tree. To protect this tree, or any other one, construction should not occur under the crown (within the dripline). In order to do this, an unmovable fence must be placed at the dripline, and left in there for the duration of the construction period. No activity or deposition of materials should be put within the fenced area. 4.Potential negative consequences for future development, existing public infxastucture, and the trees if the project is constructed and the trees are retained. Generally speaking, trees will do okay if the area they have grown up in is not disturbed. And SO long as they get what they need in that area, they tend to stay contained. However, if there is a resource, such as water, nearby and they can get their roots to it, trees can cause damage to infras~~e (especially if the water is near the soil surface). Such damage is unlikely if the trees are seriously .~ured. The plans show extensive reduction of the growing site for all of the trees except for the NE one. But even this one Will suffer, and along with the rest, will likely experience significant negative impact on their health and longevity. 26010 String Creek Rd., Willits, CA 95490 Phone 707-459-3015 In order to retain the trees and have a reaSonable chance for optimal health,.if not just plain survival, more space would be needed thanis indicated on the plan- Ideally, the entire area under and near the trees would, ne.ed to be preserved as'the "tree area-. This translates to the area currently undisturbed (f~om the existing' Sidewalk to'the existing building line). Anything less than this would probably compromiSe.tree health and lead to their demise. Withouta dedication of this space, it doesn't seem worthy to make any attempts to "save" the trees. This includes the NE tree. It' would be far better to start, over and let new trees grow into'the modified site. On the subject of new trees, it is noted that coaSt redwood would be planted. This' seems highly inappropriate in the confined spaCeS showrc PleaSe don't hesitate to contact me shouid you~have fiar~er questions or need more detail. Thank You for this opportunity to be of Service. SincerOr, Registered Consulting Arborist #253 Aflachment # ~ xts n~,c, co~ WALGREENS 4.409 S.F. t WALGREENS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Site Plan showing the location of the existing redwood trees and the minimum required growing area needed to sustain them WALGREENS PROJEC"¢~t'~ohme"' # I inch equals 50 feet (-.) 12" · AGENDA SUMMARY Attachment ~p_ ~,-/ ITEH NO: 8b DATE: .April 20, 2005 REPORT SUB3ECT: DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON KRAUSS/TOMS APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISISON CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE MARIN VENTURES/WALGREENS STORE ON EAST PERKINS 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 Item 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. :In 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 ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Take action on the appeal ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: 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 3udy Pruden submitted to the Planning Commission, dated March 16, 2005 Candace Horsley, City Ma'~ager PRO.1ECT DESCRIPTION: 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. Architectural Desiq~ 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 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$capifl_q: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_qh~'fl-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. PROJECT ISSUES AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 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 Staff's 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). TI-IE KRAU$$/TOM$ APPEAL: Hr. Albert Krauss and IVlr. Michael Toms filed an appeal of the Commission's action to bring the project before the City Council for a final decision. In 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 Retai/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 property 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. :It may be time for the community to reexamine the 1992 Downtown IVlaster 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. Tra~¢ and Circulation: 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. It 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 Medical 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. CONCLUS]: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 Mitigated 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~IMENDA'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 . Disagree with the Commission's decision, make different findings, and deny the project. (.,3 Z Tuesday March 29, 2005 866 South Dora Street Ukiah, CA 95482 To: Ukiah City Council From: Albert Krauss, Michael Toms two pages UL, 2 9 2005 L__ c,w We the undersigned, who attended the Ukiah Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 2005, request that the Ukiah 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 accderated: a local one to piggy back trucks and renew freight transport in addition to tourism - and a Bay area initiative to bring light raft 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 boAng 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, ff 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: B~t 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. ff the people of UKiah, 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 offices - 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 ftmnel 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 cheerleading session by staff before the Planning Commission. Just because staff have reached a friendly tone of commumcation 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 wall 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. ff we continue along the path indicated by the Wlagreen's project, Ukiah 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. Thank you. Resp ec t fully, Albert Krauss ~¢ Mi.chad ,Toms ? 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 course, would be a policy recommendation from the City Council to the Planning Commission. Attachment MARIN VENTURES- WALGREENS MA.1OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2005 F]:NDTNGS: 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; . 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; Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions Attachmenf # 5'-.~ 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. CONDZTZONS OF APPROVAL: The following Conditions of Approval shall be made a permanent part of Hajor 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. 2. 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. 3. :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. , , . 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. ]:n no way does this condition limit any use allowed under the current C-1 zoning classification. Attachment Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions . 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 lO-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. Affachment # _~-,~""' Plarin Ventures / Watgreens 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. Afachmenf ..//- ~- ~ 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 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 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. Marin Ventures / Walgreens Findings and Conditions Attachment # _ I I 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 '9ill 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 green, 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 ,'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 have 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 tree unsuitable for streetscapes and I would suggest a member of the maple family . 5. I would like to see a reduction in scale of the tower windows because they,current design fad and the addtion of a clock face into the tower logo. This building should not have mission-style design but be more reflective of the 1920's period Attachment# MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: DATE: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development/~,~ May 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Revised Lighting Condition- Walgreens Store Proposal At the April 20, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staffto review the proposed lighting condition (No. 30) for the Walgreens project, and add language to strengthen its ability to regulate excessively bright night lighting. Pursuant to that direction, Staff is proposing the following added language: "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. Sufficient details reqardinc~ the orooosed wattaqe of all liqhts shall be included in the Final Liqhtinq Plan so that th~ Planninq Staff can determine how briqht the proposed liqhts will be. The Director of Planninq and Community Development shall have the authorit-~ to require the Final Liqhtinq Plan to be modified (includinq the wattaqe) and/or additional information to be submitted so that the liqhtinq meet~ the requirements listed above." ITEM NO: 9a DATE: June 1, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB.1ECT: ADOPT]:ON OF RESOLUT]:ON AMEND]:NG THE PLANNZNG PERM]:T FEE SCHEDULE SUMMARY: On April 20, 2005, the City Council reviewed and discussed the Plann/n~l Perm/t Pro£ess/n~l Cost Recovery Stud?prepared by Staff, and directed Staff to prepare a draft Resolution for amending the planning permit fee schedule. The Council also directed Staff to contact the City of Petaluma regarding its approach to the collection of fees for appeals. Both of these tasks have been completed, and the Resolution and appeal fee information are included with this Agenda Summary Report. Staff recommends that the Council consider adopting the Resolution amending the planning permit fee schedule. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider adopting the Resolution amending the planning permit fee schedule. ALTERNAT]:VE COUNC]:L POU:CY OPT]:ON: Do not adopt the Resolution and provide direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code. 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 IVlanager Attachments: 1. 2. 3. . Resolution amending the planning permit fee schedule. Agenda Summary Report, dated April 20, 2005 Correspondence received from the State Office of Planning and Research regarding General Plan update, dated Hay 16, 2005 General Plan Costs & Estimates - ListServe Email, January 2005 Email correspondence received from the City of Petaluma, dated April 21, 2005. APPROVED: L~,. ~~ Candace--'--Horsley,-City Manager~ THE PROPOSED REVTSED FEE SCHEDULE: The proposed revised planning permit fee schedule includes a 100% cost recovery approach, a continued "flat fee" for minor permits, a 15% General Plan Update/Maintenance Fee, and a fee for appeals. 100% Cost Recovery: As discussed in the April 20, 2005 Agenda Summary Report (attachment No. 2), the proposed 100% cost recovery strategy could result in an "average" fee of approximately $2,500 for a Major Use, Site Development, or Variance Permit. The current fees collected for these types of permits are $900.00 for a level i and $1,200.00 for a level 2. As a recent example, $900.00 was collected to process the Walgreen's Major Site Development Permit (Level 1). Tt is estimated that if a 100% cost recovery fee was in place, the fee thus far to process the permit would be approximately $5,000.00. Tn contrast, it is estimated that the recent Major Use Permit for the Tractor Supply Company project ($1200.00 collected - Level 2) would have resulted in a final processing fee of approximately $1,800.00. The recommended 100% cost recovery strategy would eliminate the Level 1 and 2 approach. It is proposed that applicants pay a $1,000.00 deposit and Staff would maintain a detailed time-tracking sheet on the project. When the $1,000.00 deposit is 75% consumed, a written request to the applicant for an additional deposit would be sent. This process continues until the permit is fully processed, and either a final invoice or partial refund would be sent to the applicants depending upon how much time is spent on processing the permit. The permit would not be valid until the final payment is received in full. To achieve a full 100% cost recovery for the processing of planning permits, a percentage of the following costs would 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 Minor Permits: Staff is recommending no change to the current flat fees collected for minor Use, Site Development, or Variance Permit 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 are predictable in terms of the amount of time it takes to process them. General Plan Update/Maintenance Fee: General Plans must be updated periodically to remain valid and legally defensible. 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. Tt is estimated that a 15% "surcharge" on Building Permits could result in approximately $30,000 per year. Examples of this fee include approximately $660.00 for a 3,000 square foot single family residence, $67.50 for a 200 square foot kitchen addition, and $7,332 for a 17,000 square foot retail store. Appeal Fee: At the April 20th meeting, the Council discussed the pros and cons of establishing a fee for appeals. Staff discussed a number of optional approaches, and the Council directed Staff to contact the City of Petaluma to discuss its approach of charging different appeal fees for the applicant and general public. Staff contacted the Community Development Director, who indicated that if an applicant files an appeal, the fee is based on a full cost recovery system. If a public member appeals, the fee is still full cost recovery, yet the cost to the appellant is $170.00, with the remainder paid by the applicant (see Attachment No. 4). As outlined in the Plann/ng Perm/t Process/ng and Cost Recovery Study, the Council has a number of options regarding appeal fees. CONCLU$]: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. Additionally, the processing of planning permits has become more time consuming, which increases the cost to the City to process them. Staff believes 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. Finally, Staff believes that at a minimum, a nominal appeal fee to cover the "hard costs" of processing is appropriate. A $100.00 fee would cover the cost of noticing, copying, postage, etc. While some jurisdictions establish high fees to discourage frivolous appeals, it could be argued that no appeal is frivolous - that anyone, regardless of economic status should have the ability to file an appeal. Staff recommends that the Council discuss the available options and decide if an appeal fee is appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACT/ON: Consider adopting the Resolution amending the planning permit fee schedule. Attac t ~,, 1,/ RESOLUTION NO. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ESTABLISHING UPDATED PLANNING PERMIT FEES PURSUANT TO CITY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 880 WHEREAS, 1. Planning Permit fees in the City of Ukiah have not been updated since 2002; and 2. In 2002, when the City last updated its planning permit fees, it was understood that even with the increase, the fees would not cover the full costs of processing the permits; and 3. Processing planning permit applications has become more complex and time consuming in recent years due to changes in State mandated procedures, increased citizen involvement, an increase in infill development, the demand for higher quality planning analysis, and the emergence of typical growth pains, such as, traffic congestion drainage issues, and the potential changes in community character; and 4. The City prepared a Planning Permit Processing Cost Recovery Study to evaluate the current fees and explore and justify alternatives for new fees; and 5. The Planning Permit Processing Cost Recovery Study reveals that the fees collected for the processing of planning permits has ranged from 4.7% to 17% of the cost of processing the permits; 6. The City desires to recover the full cost of processing major planning permit applications, while maintaining a "flat fee" for minor planning permits; and 7. The City desires to establish a General Plan/Advance Planning maintenance fee to generate funds for the update and maintenance of the General Plan, and the preparation of other General Plan related planning documents/projects such as zoning code updates, special studies, and consultant assistance with General Plan implementation; and 8. The General Plan/Advance Planning maintenance fee would be collected on all Building Permits because by law, Building Permits cannot be issued if the City does not have an updated and legally defensible General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other mandated planning documents; and 9. The City has concluded that a General Plan/Advance Planning maintenance fee of 15% of the total fee for the issuance of a Building Permit (plumbing, mechanical, electrical, building, plan check, etc.)is reasonable and appropriate, and could provide between $15,000 and $40,000 per year depending upon the number and scope of Building Permit applications; and 1 of 6 Resolution No. 2005- Attachment 10. The estimated cost for updating the General Plan and preparing required advanced planning documents over the next ten years is approximately $250,000 to $300,000; and 11. The City desires to establish a fee for the processing of appeals; and 12. The City has determined that a nominal fee of $100.00 for appeals is reasonable and appropriate because it would fund the cost of legal ad publication, the copying of public notices, Staff Reports, and other documents, and the cost for postage to send notices and documents to the applicants, appellants, and all interested parties. 13. The City desires to maintain Iow fees for affordable housing projects (project that are "locked-in" affordable to citizens earning less than 80% of the area median income, "sweat-equity" residential projects, and projects involving housing for identified groups in need such as seniors, homeless persons, and the mentally ill. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the updated fee schedule for the processing of planning permit applications, providing planning and zoning services, and for the cost of planning documents, studies, maps and other materials as listed on the attached Exhibit %." PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie UIvila, City Clerk 2 of 6 Resolution No. 2005- Attachment EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 05- PERMIT APPLICATION OR SERVICE Site Development Permit Major Site Development Permit Minor Use Permit Major Use Permit Minor Use Permit/SDP Amendment Variance Major Variance Minor Subdivision Major REQUIRED FEE $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery Affordable Housing Project: $450 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. $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery Affordable Housing Project: $450 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. $500 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery (Major) $50 (Minor Level 1) $150 (Minor Level 2) $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery $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. $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery Affordable Housing Project: $450 3 of 6 Resolution No. 2005- Attachment Subdivision Minor Subdivision Exception Boundary Line Adjustment Appeal Agenda/Minutes General Plan Amendment Annexation General Plan Amendment Rezoning Rezoning Planned Development CEQA Document Filing Pre-Application Conference/Review (Planning Staff) Project Review Committee Pre-Application Review $900 Affordable Housing Project: $225 $500.00 Deposit and 100% cost Recovery $450 Affordable Housing Project: $225 $100 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery (Applicants) $100.00 (public) $200/Year $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery $1000.00 Deposit and 100% cost Recovery $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery Affordable Housing Project: $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. Sign Permit $200 Minor: $25 Major: $50 A Minor Siqn Permit involves up to one hour of analysis and administrative work. A Maior Si,qn Permit takes more than 1 hour. 4 of 6 Resolution No. 2005 - Attachment # J - ~" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Monitoring Archaeological Search -for Environmental Review Public Hearing Continuations requested by applicants 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) Full Consultant Cost plus 15% administration fee Level 1: $100 Level 2:$200 Level 1 Mitigation Monitoring involves the required monitoring of mitigations established in Level 1 Initial Studies. Level 2 Mitigation Monitoring involves the required monitoring of mitigations established in Level 2 Initial Studies. 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 $1000.00 Deposit and 100% Cost Recovery Affordable Housing Project: $450 $100 $150 $150 (Level 1 Minor Use Permit) 5 of 6 Resolution No. 2005- Attachment # ,//'", ~ ,,, Building Permit Review Fee for Discretionary Review Projects General Plan/Advance Planning Maintenance Fee Document and Map Fees General Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Master BikelPed 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) Zoning Map (B&W) Miscellaneous Maps/Graphics/Reports Photo Copy (per page) $50 15% of the total cost of a Building Permit (excluding sewer hook-up fee) $30.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $25.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.oo $15.00 $30.00 $10.00 $30.00 $10.00 $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 80% of the area median income, "sweat-equity" residential projects, and projects involving housing for identified groups in need such as seniors, homeless persons, and the mentally ill. 6 of 6 Resolution No. 2005- Attachment..' ~q-EM NO: DATE: April 20, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: D]:SCUSSI~ON AND D:ZRECTI~ON REGARDTNG THE PLANNTNG PERM]:T PROCESS:ZNG 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 P/ann/ng Perm/t Process/ng and Cost Recovery Study. This Agenda Item 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. ALTERNAT]:VE COUNC]:L POL:ZCY 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, City Mai~er Attachment 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. Host 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 100% 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 "flat 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 flat 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 alegally defensible General Plan. If a community has an inadequate, internally inconsistent, and/or outdated General Plan, it could be legally challenged. ]:f 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. Attachment 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/Maintenance Fee. Appeal Fee: Host 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. In 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. Host 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 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. If 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. Improve the brochure that describes the planning permit process. 2. Improve 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. . . . ]:mprove the pre-application review process to provide better"early" guidance to prospective applicants. Attachment # 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. Staff is prepared to implement the above listed improvements. CONCLUSION: 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. ~[f 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 "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 "surch'arge" 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 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 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 .... Other Types of Fees. ............................................................................................................ General Plan Update and Maintenance Fee ........................................................................ 8 Appeal Fee... ....................................................................................................................... 11 How Planning Permit Processing Be Improved ................................................................. 13 Conclusions. 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 INTRODUCTION 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 ::[00% 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. 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, :~976, 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 $450.00. THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE As indicated above, the current fee schedule was adopted in 2002. The study that supported an increase in fees at that time explored two primary factors. First, the fees in effect at the time (adopted in 1998) were compared to the fees charged for the same type of permit by other nearby jurisdictions. Second, an average timeframe for processing a typical development permit application was established, and the staff salary/benefits implications were calculated. Additionally, consideration was given to establishing new fees based upon the overall services provided to the public. The General Fund supported many services that were primarily provided solely to the development community, and the City Council was asked to discuss whether or not the development community should be charged for these services. The City Council adopted the new fee schedule which raised many fees, kept fees Iow for affordable housing projects, established Iow fees for very minor permits, and established new fees for services previously provided at no cost. As a result, the annual revenue generated from the new fees doubled. However, the revenue was still small in terms of the Community Planning Division actual expenditures for processing planning permits (see Table I below). THE COMMUNITY .mL~NNING OIVI$ION BUOG£T 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 2003-200q fiscal year, 3:[ Minor permits and 22 Major permits were processed. So far during the 200q-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 July 2000- June 2004 F]:SCAL YEAR REVENUE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE AS A (.luly-.lune) FROI~I PLANN]:NG COMMUNTTY PERCENT OF THE PERMTTS PLANNZNG SALARY SALARY AND BENEF]:TS AND BENEF1:TS USED FOR PROCESS]:NG 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 2002-2003 2003-2004 $13,400 ")'7 $,_, ,775 $25,110 $157,695 $193,489 $195,981 8.4% 14.3% 12.8% 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, ~t is estimated that the Department spends approximately 75% of its bme on processing development permit applications. The tasks that do not ~nvolve fee collection include, but are not limited to long-range planning activities, providing public information, participabng 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 1 above. The Planning Permit fees were increased in June of 2002, which is why the revenue increased during the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Compare 2000-2001 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 posibon was finally filled and the salary and benefits are reflected in the 2001-2002 budget. THE 100 % COST RECOVER Y A1. TERNA TIVE - H/HA T OTHER COMMUNITIES A RE 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 flat fee. These permits do not require a publiclhearing and include Minor Use Permits, Minor Variances, Minor Design Reviews, etc. The flat 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 processinq the permit (staff time, postage, legal notices, copies, etc.) are charged against the account. In (he 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 flat 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 1/KIAH Z 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 - SZt0,000 has not been achieved. This is due in part to the types of appiications 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 "Hajor" 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 Averaqe Staff Time and Staff Cost to Process a Major Planning Permit STAFF PLANNING DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COORDINATOR TOTALS AVERAGE TIME SPENT 10 Hours 35 Hours 3 Hours 48 Hours HOURLY SALARY AND BENEFITS $58.40 $40.81 $28.01 COST $584 $1438.25 $84.03 $2096.38 TABLE 3 Definitions of Major and Minor Permits MA3OR 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 zonin9 districts, and 640 square feet in the R-2, R-3, and C-N zonin9 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 15;0 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. Plinor 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 Major Planning Permit: TABLE 4 A 100% Cost Recovery Scenario "Average" Major Permit Processing Salary& PC Hard Building : ]~nsurance Conf & Dues Equip Supplies Total Benefits Salaries Costs Utilities Rental, and Training Cost Process to 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 COSTS: 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 dwided by 60 (average number of planning permits per year) to arrive at the required contribution per permit. Buitdinq Rental, .Ul;ilities 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 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. 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. :In addition, many jurisdictions charge for services that the City of Ukiah has traditionally provided at no cost to the development community and general public..~rvlost 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 $17~.00, and the applicant must pay any additional fee to ensure full cost recovery. General Plan Update/Maintenance Fee: Hany 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 flat 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 January 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. ]:t 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. ]:f 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 E×amples of What Some 3urisdictions Charge for the Update and Nlaintenance of Their General Plans 9URISDICTION I FEE Riverside San Rafael Paradise Morgan Hill Sacramento Pleasanton Oakland Fairfield Truckee Tiburon 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 rvlFD / $.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 REVISION FEES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED 2000-2004 TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEES COLLECTED $272,223 $187,849 $161,545 $223,578 10% GP 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 averaqe annual collection based on a 10% fee would have been $21,130. If the fee were 15%, the average 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 BUILDING PERMIT 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 apa~ment complex I Restaurant (Applebee's)I $450 $45 $58,085 $24,899 $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 Cib/wide 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. /~ppeal 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 JURISDICTION Ukiah Fort Bragg APPEAL FEE $0 $750 Mendocino County Novato San Rafael Cloverdale Petaluma Santa Rosa Davis $750 $100 $1,400 $75 $170 deposit for applicant / $170 total for public $350 $2OO 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 flat 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 flat rate for the public and a 100% cost recovery fee for applicants. 12 TABLE 9 Appeal Fee Options Option Fee 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 $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 processing includes salary and benefits for the time the planner spends processmcj the appeal, the time the Director spends on the appeal, the time the City Council spends on the appeal, and the hard costs. PLANNING PERMIT PROCESSING CAN 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. improve 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 w, hat 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 rvlap, 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. CONCZ U$IO N$ 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 "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 14 and would avoid the need for a large general fund lump sum in the future. Saving the funds over the next ten years mai<es 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 Minor Planning Permits. w Consider establishing a 10% or 15% Genera/P/an Update//¥a/'ntenance Surchar_qe Fee on Building Permits. Consider establishing a $100 fee for appeals by the public, and a 100% full cost recovery appeal fee for applicants. 4, ]:mplement 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 Adicle 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 PermitJSDP 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 $90O Affordable Housing Project: $225 Level 1'$450 Level 2:$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 Projeci: $225 $0 $200fYear $900 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 $9O0 $1800 Affordable Housing Project:S450 $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, $2O0 $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 Level1:$100 Level2:$200 Level 1 Mitigation Monitoring involves the required monitoring of mitigations established in Level 1 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 $2O.0O $20.00 $25.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $30.O0 $10.O0 $30.O0 $10.O0 Zoning Map (B&W) Misc Maps/Graphics/Reports Photo Copy (per page) $5.00-$30.00 $020 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 660:14. Fees must be reasonable for zoning variances, building permits and processing applications (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of la,.v, when 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 authorits, of Chapter 3 (commencing with 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 ,.vhich 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 ag.ency 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] · Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Attachment # STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research · ~ o1: PLAN,. t~. OF CAL¢*~ Sean Walsh Director May 16, 2005 Chuck Stump, Director City of Ukiah Planning and Community Development Department 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Chuck Stump, The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is required to notify cities and counties with general plans that have not been revised in eight (8) years (Government Code Section 65040.5(a)). Our records indicate that Ukiah's General Plan has not been revised in the past 8 years or more. For purposes of this notification, a revision is considered to be a comprehensive update of at least five (5) of the seven (7) mandatory general plan elements. The following is a list of the mandatory elements of the General Plan for Ukiah and the last year that it was updated, according to our records. If this information is incorrect, please let us know as soon as possible. Land Use: 1995 Circulation: 1995 Housing: 2004 Conservation: 1995 Open Space: 1995 Safety: 1995 Noise: 1995 To compile its list of jurisdictions with 8-year-old general plans, OPR surveyed local government planning agencies in 2004 for current information regarding their general plans. OPR also reviewed public notices from the jurisdictions, examined information in our CEQA database and searched the jurisdictions' websites for additional information on the status of their general plans. General plans which have not been revised within the past 8 years are not necessarily legally inadequate. However, the California Supreme Court has stated that local governments have an implied duty to keep their general plans current (De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763). Additionally, local governments must review and revise their general plans as often as they deem necessary or appropriate (Government Code Section 65103(a)). The general plan statutes do not provide a mandatory minimum time frame for revision, except for housing -1- Attachment # ~ "-- ~ elements, which must be revised not less than every five years (Government Code Section 65588). OPR is also required to report to the Attorney General, cities and counties with general plans that have not been revised in ten (10) years (Government Code Section 65040.5(b)). Your jurisdiction will be reported to the Attorney General if your general plan becomes 10 years old. If your plan is currently 10 years old or older, your jurisdiction has already been reported to the Attorney General. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call Erin Larson at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, Sean Walsh Director General Plan Costs & Estimates Hughson (3,987 pop.) Presently in process of requesting proposals for GP/EIR Update Turlock (85,000 pop.) Recently established GP Recovery Fee now collected on all new development as a function of CFF fee Southgate (96,375 pop.) Will soon consider establishing GP Update Recovery Fee (to include Zoning Ordinance Update) El Dorado County (156,299 pop.) Recently adopted a comprehensive GP/Master EIR Update after many years and one prior unsuccessful attempt (legal challenge) Glendora (50,000 pop.) Completed a comprehensive GP/MEIR Update in 2003 San Rafael (57,000 pop.) Recently completed comprehensive update (4-year process). Sacramento (480,000 pop.) Comprehensive GP/MEIR Update recently initiated Livermore (78,000 pop.) Completed comprehensive GP/MEIR Update in February, 2004 Budgeted: $182,000 Cost Estimate in CFF: GP/Master EIR: $1,070.000 Cost Estimate: $1.5 - 2 million Final Costs: Approx. $5 million Costs: $387,000 Total Cost: $1.48 million [GP Plan Consultants: $510,000] [EIR Consultants: $254,000] [Traffic Consultants$461,000] [Misc. Consultants $111,000] Costs estimate: $2.1 million (Consultant Budget) Costs: $1 million + (not including city staff time) Note: Their GP maintenance fee collects 130,000 annually for the next GP Update Attachment # ~/~ "' ~' Lodi (56,999 pop.) Now budgeting and planning to undertake comprehensive GP/MEIR Update soon. Beverly Hills (33,784 pop.) Recently began update to GP/MEIR Los Altos (28,000 pop.) Updated GP/EISMND in 2002 with comprehensive Circulation Element Update Escalon (5,963 pop.) Recently completed comprehensive GP/MEIR Update Emeryville (7,000 pop.) General Plan Update in progress (will include MEIR and Ordinance Update Budget Estimate: Approx. $1 million Consultant Contract: $748,000 (expect final costs to be higher) Cost: $225,000 [No comprehensive EIR) Cost: $196,000 Cost: $600,000 (GP/MEIR) $200,000 (Zoning Ordinance) Source: Prepared by the Oakdale Community Development Department Based on Responses from League of California Cities LISTSERVE January, 2005 ATTACHMENT B Appeal Fees Page 1 of 1 Charley Stump Affochment # ~'-//__-_ From: Moore, Mike [MMOORE@ci.petaluma.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:18 PM To: charleys@cityofukiah.com Subject: Appeal Fees In 2003, the City Council approved a fee structure for Community Development that allowed us to recover our costs for processing major development and zoning applications. The initial fees are a deposit and we charge our time against that deposit and request additional funds from the applicant, as necessary. A copy of our current fee schedule is available on our website at: http://cityofpetaluma, net/cdd/forms.lhtml. Scroll down to the Planning section and look for "Fees". We define "major" as any application requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission or our design review board. Appeals of a planning commission or design review decision made by the project applicant are covered under our cost recovery system. If a member of the public files the appeal, the public member pays the $170, but the applicant is responsible for all costs of processing over the $170. To date we have had no serious complaints about our fee system. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Mike Moore Community Development Director City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 707.778.4301 mmoore@ci,petaluma,ca,us 5/23/2005 AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: 3une 1, 2005 $I.1 M ~ARY REPORT SUB3ECT: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN MENDOCINO COMMISSION AND ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ACTION COUNTY CONCERNING FEASIBILITY INLAND WATER & POWER SUMMARY: Attached is an agreement propoSed by the Army Corp of Engineers for sharing the cost of studying the feasibility of raising the height of the dam at Lake Mendocino to increase the water storage capacity of the lake, The Corp has received funds to study the feasibility of raising the dam, if a "local sponsor" will pay 50% of the cost. The local sponsor is the Mendocino County Inland Water & Power Commission ("MCIWPC'3. The agreement Sets the local share of cost for the feasibility study at $2,889,000. As a member of the MCIWPC, the City would bear a portion of this cost. The agreement has been reviewed by attorneys for MCIWPC, the Mendocino County Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District and the Potter Valley Irrigation District. One provision of the agreement has provoked some controversy. Article II.H of the Agreement states that if in the course of conducting the study any contamination is discovered "... in, on, or under any lands, eaSements or rights-of way that the Government determines to be required for the construction, operation, and RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider whether to seek additional water under the Water Supply Agreement with the Flood Control District and provide staff with appropriate direction. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/a Citizens Advised: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/a David 3. Rapport, CiW Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. May 17, 2005 Feasibility Study Agreement 2. Letter from Lt. Colonel Philip T. Feir Approved: Candace Horsley, C~Manager Staff Report Re: Feasibility Study Agreement Date: June 1, 2005 Page: 2 maintenance of the project[,]" the local sponsor shall pay all of the costs "to prepare a response plan for addressing..." the contamination. Attorneys for the City, MCIWPC and the Flood Control District have objected that the local sponsor should not be obligated to prepare a response plan, if the contamination is located on property which is part of the existing Lake Mendocino Project. Local representatives of the Corp agreed and initially proposed amendments to this paragraph which would not have imposed this obligation on the local sponsor, if the contamination was part of the existing project. The Corp actually circulated a draft agreement with this added language. However, local Corp representatives reported that if the standard contract language were changed, it could take months to get final approval for the contract. According to them, that delay could jeopardize the federal funding. To reassure members of IvlCIWPC and encourage MCIWPC to sign the standard form of the local sponsor agreement, Lt. Colonel Philip T. Feir wrote a letter to .lanet Pauli stating that: We have confirmed that it is not the intent of the model language to require the non-Federal sponsor to develop a response plan for any releases of [hazardous]... material which may be found on existing project lands. However, under the language of the agreement, if it were determined that additional land is required, and if CERCLA regulated material were found on that land, then you would have the obligation to develop a response plan for that site. Lawyers for MCIWPC and the Flood Control District, as well as the City Attorney, are concerned that this statement of intent conflicts with the express wording of the agreement and may not be admissible or binding on the government, if a dispute arose in the future concerning this provision of the agreement. The letter from Lt. Colonel Feir correctly points out that the agreement would not determine who is legally responsible to clean up any contamination; only who is obligated to prepare the response plan. However, the cost of a response plan can be substantial. His letter also points out that under Article X.A either party may terminate the agreement on 30 days notice. If the obligation to prepare a response plan arose and the government disavowed the Lt. Colonel's statement of intent, the MCIWPC could terminate the agreement rather than incur that cost. Staff may have more to report when this matter is heard by the City Council. A further oral report will be given at that time. Attachment # AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION FOR THE COYOTE VALLEY DAM FEASIBILTY STUDY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day, of May, 2005, by and between the Department of the Army (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the District Engineer executing this Agreement, and the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (hereinafter the "Sponsor"), WITNESSETH, that WHEREAS, the Congress (Senate and/or House Committees) has authorized the Coyote Valley Dam, formerly the "Lake Mendocino Project" in Section 204 of the 1950 Flood Control Act (Public Law 516, 81 st Congress, 2nd Session) for the initial stage of the plan; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a reconnaissance study of the deferred water supply elements of the authorized Federal project, and any additional flood control and sedimentation requirements, to determine Federal interest in potential improvements to the project pursuant to this authority, and has determined that further study in the nature of a "Feasibility Phase Study" (hereinafter the "Study") is required to fulfill the intent of the study authority and to assess the extent of the Federal interest in participating in a solution to the identified problem; and WHEREAS, Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, as amended) specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to the Study; WHEREAS, the Sponsor has the authority and capability to furnish the cooperation hereinafter set forth and is willing to participate in study cost sharing and financing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor and the Government understand that entering into this Agreement in no way obligates either party to implement a project and that whether the Government supports a project authorization and budgets it for implementation depends upon, among other things, the outcome of the Study and whether the proposed solution is consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and with the budget priorities of the Administration; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I- DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement: A. The term "Study Costs" shall mean all disbursements by the Government pursuant to this Agreement, from Federal appropriations or from funds made available to the Government by the Sponsor, and all negotiated costs of work performed by the Sponsor pursuant to this Agreement. Study Costs shall include, but not be limited to: labor charges; direct costs; overhead expenses; supervision and administration costs; the costs of participation in Study Management and Coordination in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; the costs of contracts with third parties, including termination or suspension charges; and any termination or suspension costs (ordinarily defined as those costs necessary to terminate ongoing contracts or obligations and to properly safeguard the work already accomplished) associated with this Agreement. B. The term "estimated Study Costs" shall mean the estimated cost of performing the Study as of the effective date of this Agreement, as specified in Article m.A. of this Agreement. C. The term "excess Study Costs" shall mean Study Costs that exceed the estimated Study Costs and that do not result from mutual agreement of the parties, a change in Federal law that increases the cost of the Study, or a change in the scope of the Study requested by the Sponsor. D. The term "study period" shall mean the time period for conducting the Study, commencing with the release to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District of initial Federal feasibility funds following the execution of this Agreement and ending when the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submits the feasibility report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for consistency with the policies and programs of the President. E. The term "PMP" shall mean the Project Management Plan, which is attached to this Agreement and which shall not be considered binding on either party and is subject to change by the Government, in consultation with the Sponsor. F. The term "negotiated costs" shall mean the costs of in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsor in accordance with the PMP. G. The term "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES A. The Government, using funds and in-kind services provided by the Sponsor and funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States, shall expeditiously prosecute and complete the Study, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and Federal laws, regulations, and policies. B. In accordance with this Article and Article m.A., m.B. and m.c. of this Agreement, the Sponsor shall contribute cash and in-kind services equal to fifty (50) percent of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. The Sponsor may, consistent with applicable law and regulations, contribute up to 50 percent of Study Costs through the provision of in-kind services. The in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsor, the estimated negotiated costs for those services, and the estimated schedule under which those services are to be provided are specified in the PMP. Negotiated costs shall be subject to an audit by the Government to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability. C. The Sponsor shall pay a fifty (50) percent share of excess Study Costs in accordance with Article m.D. of this Agreement. D. The Sponsor understands that the schedule of work may require the Sponsor to provide cash or in-kind services at a rate that may result in the Sponsor temporarily diverging from the obligations concerning cash and in-kind services specified in paragraph B. of this Article. Such temporary divergences shall be identified in the quarterly reports provided for in Article m.A. of this Agreement and shall not alter the obligations concerning costs and services specified in paragraph B. of this Article or the obligations concerning payment specified in Article m oCthis Agreement. E. If, upon the award of any contract or the performance of any in-house work for the Study by the Government or the Sponsor, cumulative financial obligations of the Government and the Sponsor would result in excess Study Costs, the Government and the Sponsor agree to defer award of that and all subsequent contracts, and performance of that and all subsequent in-house work, for the Study until the Government and the Sponsor agree to proceed. Should the Government and the sponsor require time to arrive at a decision, the Agreement will be suspended in accordance with Article X., for a period of not to exceed six months. In the event the Government and the sponsor have not reached an agreement to proceed by the end of their 6- month period, the Agreement may be subject to termination in accordance with Article X. F. No Federal funds may be used to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. G. The award and management of any contract with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement, which obligates Federal appropriations, shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. The award and management of any contract by the Sponsor with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement which obligates funds of the Sponsor and does not obligate Federal appropriations shall be exclusively within the control of the Sponsor, but shall be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations. H. The Sponsor shall be responsible for the total cost of developing a response plan for addressing any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767, (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9675), as amended, existing in, on, or under any lands, easements or rights-of way that the Government determines to be required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Such costs shall not be included in total study costs. ARTICLE III- METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the parties, current projections of Study Costs, current projections of each party's share of Study Costs, and current projections of the amount of Study Costs that will result in excess Study Costs. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Sponsor a report setting forth this information. As of the effective date of this Agreement, estimated Study Costs are $5,798,000 and the Sponsor's share of estimated Study Costs is $2,889,000. In order to meet the Sponsor's cash payment requirements for its share of estimated Study Costs, the Sponsor must provide a cash contribution currently estimated to be $2,889,000. The dollar amounts set forth in this Article are based upon the Government's best estimates, which reflect the scope of the study described in the PMP, projected costs, price-level changes, and anticipated inflation. Such cost estimates are subject to adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Sponsor. B. The Sponsor shall provide its cash contribution required under Article II.B. of this Agreement in accordance with the following provisions: 1. For purposes of budget planning, the Government shall notify the Sponsor by June 30 of each year of the estimated funds that will be required from the Sponsor to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs for the upcoming fiscal year. 2. No later than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled date for the Government's issuance of the solicitation for the first contract for the Study or for the Government's anticipated first significant in-house expenditure for the Study, the Government shall notify the Sponsor in writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for the first fiscal year of the Study. No later than thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, the Sponsor shall verify to the satisfaction of the Government that the Sponsor has deposited the required funds in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government, with interest accruing to the Sponsor. 3. For the second and subsequent fiscal years of the Study, the Government shall, no later than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, notify the Sponsor in writing of the fimds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for that fiscal year, taking into account any temporary divergences identified under Article II.C. of this Agreement. No later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the required funds available to the Government through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. 4. The Government shall draw from the escrow or other account provided by the Sponsor such sums as the Government deems necessary to cover the Sponsor's share of contractual and in-house fiscal obligations attributable to the Study as they are incurred. 5. In the event the Government determines that the Sponsor must provide additional funds to meet its share of Study Costs, the Government shall so notify the Sponsor in writing. No later than sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of such notice, the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the additional required funds available through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. C. Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Study Period or termination of this Agreement, the Government shall conduct a final accounting of Study Costs, including disbursements by the Government of Federal funds, cash contributions by the Sponsor, the amount of any excess Study Costs, and credits for the negotiated costs of the Sponsor, and shall furnish the Sponsor with the results of this accounting. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Government, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Sponsor for the excess, if any, of cash contributions and credits given over its required share of Study Costs, other than excess Study Costs, or the Sponsor shall provide the Government any cash contributions required for the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. D. The Sponsor shall provide its cash contribution for excess Study Costs as required under Article II.C. of this Agreement by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, San Francisco" to the District Engineer as follows: 1. After the project that is the subject of this Study has been authorized for construction, no later than the date on which a Project Cooperation Agreement is entered into for the project; or 2. In the event the project that is the subject of this Study is not authorized for construction by a date that is no later than 5 years of the date of the final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning the project, or by a date that is no later than 2 years after the date of the termination of the study, the Sponsor shall pay its share of excess costs on that date (5 years after the date of the Chief of Engineers or 2 year after the date of the termination of the study). ARTICLE IV - STUDY MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION A. To provide for consistent and effective communication, the Sponsor and the Government shall appoint named senior representatives to an Executive Committee. Thereafter, the Executive Committee shall meet regularly until the end of the Study Period. B. Until the end of the Study Period, the Executive Committee shall generally oversee the Study consistently with the PMP. C. The Executive Committee may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that it oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider such recommendations. The Government has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Executive Committee's recommendations. D. The Executive Committee shall appoint representatives to serve on a Study Management Team. The Study Management Team shall keep the Executive Committee informed of the progress of the Study and of significant pending issues and actions, and shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of all work items identified in the PMP. E. The costs of participation in the Executive Committee (including the cost to serve on the Study Management Team) shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE V- DISPUTES As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. The parties shall each pay 50 percent of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. Such costs shall not be included in Study Costs. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI- MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Government and the Sponsor shall develop procedures for keeping books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total Study Costs. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to state and local governments at 32 C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence in accordance with these procedures for a minimum of three years after completion of the Study and resolution of all relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government and the Sponsor shall each allow the other to inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. B. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Sponsor is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the cost principles in OMB Circular No. A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits shall be included in total Study Costs and shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES The Government and the Sponsor act in independent capacities in the performance of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. ARTICLE vm - OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. ARTICLE IX- FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS In the exercise of the Sponsors fights and obligations under this Agreement, the Sponsor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto and published in 32 C.F.R. Part 195, as well as Army Regulations 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army". ARTICLE X - TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. This Agreement shall terminate at the conclusion of the Study Period, and neither the Government nor the Sponsor shall have any further obligations hereunder, except as provided in Article m.c.; provided, that prior to such time and upon thirty (30) days written notice, either party may terminate or suspend this Agreement. In addition, the Government shall terminate this Agreement immediately upon any failure of the parties to agree to extend the study under Article II.E. of this agreement, or upon the failure of the sponsor to fulfill its obligation under Article m. of this Agreement. In the event that either party elects to terminate this Agreement, both parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article m.c. and m.D. of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, all data and information generated as part of the Study shall be made available to both parties. B. Any termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligations previously incurred, including the costs of closing out or transferring any existing contracts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION BY Philip T. Feir, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers San Francisco District BY Janet Pauli Chairperson Mendocino County Inland Water & Power Commission REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Attachment # DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2197 May 18, 2005 Programs & Project Management Division Ms. Janet K.F. Pauli Chairperson Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission 425 Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Subject: Federal Government and Project Sponsor obligations regarding HTRW issues during the Feasibility Phase the of Coyote Dam Project Dear Ms. Pauli: This letter is in response to the Coyote Dam Project sponsor's (Mendocino County Inland Water and Power's (MCIWPC)) concerns regarding the obligations and responsibilities of both the Federal Government and the sponsor in the event that hazardous substances regulated under the jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) are discovered at the proposed project site. For purposes of this letter, I will refer to the hazardous substances addressed herein as "HTRW." Also, for purposes of understanding the Government's intent in its model agreements, the letter will make a distinction between the obligations of the sponsor with respect to lands already owned by the existing project and those additional lands which it may subsequently be determined the local sponsor may have to acquire. As you know the purpose of CERCLA is to achieve the environmental clean up of prior releases of HTRW material. Under the Act, liability is assign based on an entity's involvement as an "owner," "operator," or "arranger" (someone in the HTRW transport and disposal business."). Unfortunately, determining the extent of an entity's involvement or exposure based on that criteria may take years. For purposes of the Corps civil works program, the fundamental policy underlying the language in the Corps' model agreements is that the Corps does not want to expend its civil works project funds in either becoming involved in the determination of who is responsible for a HTRW release or in the remediation. It is not the intent of the model language to either change the CERCLA statutory liability scheme or make a non-Federal project sponsor liable for remediating a HTRW release it would not otherwise be responsible for under CERCLA. Therefore, with this as background I shall try to apply it in the context of the FCSA agreement we are asking you to sign. The model language assigns the responsibility for the total cost of developing a response plan to the non-Federal project sponsor. This language was developed in anticipation of performing a Feasibility Study on a total new project. It was not developed for a project such as Coyote Dam which has existing project land. We have CESPN-PM SUBJECT: Coyote Dam FCSA HTRW liabilities and responsibilities confirmed that it is not the intent of the model language to require the non-Federal sponsor to develop a response plan for any releases of HTRW material which may be found on existing project lands. However, under the language of the agreement, if it were determined that additional land is required, and if CERCLA regulated material were found on that land, then you would have the obligation to develop a response plan for that site. Please note that even if this were to occur, the extent that MCIWPC would be liable for the ultimate cleanup would be controlled by those preexisting provisions of CERCLA which assign responsibility. It is important to keep in mind that in the event HTRW is discovered on any of the existing lands and easements or any lands and easements that might be needed for the proposed Coyote Dam project, the sponsor always has the option to discontinue the feasibility study and the project if they are not comfortable with the planned response plan for the HTRW or the estimated expense of the response. However, historically, HTRW issues have generally not been a major expense in the total cost of construction for a major infrastructure project. The feasibility study will determine how much HTRW expense the project can tolerate before the HTRW expense diminishes the benefits associated with the Coyote Dam project to the point where there is no Federal interest in the project. The Corps will work very hard with the sponsor to determine what the best project is that can be constructed that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the cost of construction and is in the best interest of the sponsor and the Federal Government. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call the Project Manager, David Doak at (415) 977-8562. Sincerely, Philip T. Feir Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Commanding AGENDA ITEM NO: [Ob MEETING DATE: June 1, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: UTILIZING THE FIFTH WEDNESDAY OF THE HONTH FOR PROCLAIVlATJONS AND INFORMATIONAL TTEMS - - COUNCILMEMBER MCCOWEN Councilmemeber McCowen sent a letter to the Ukiah City Council regarding a suggestion to utilize the fifth Wednesday of the month, which occurs four times per year, to consider proclamations, informational items and general discussion items rather than including them on the bi-weekly regular council meetings. His letter is attached for discussion by the Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION: meeting dates. Discussion and possible action regarding Council special ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Provide Direction to staff Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments' N/A Councilmember McCowen Hark Ashiku, Hayor City Hanager 1. Letter from Councilmember McCowen Approved: Cah~ace Horsley, Cit~anager TO: UKIAH CITY COUNCIL FROM: JOHN MCCOWEN RE: Utilize fifth wednesday of month (maximum four per year) to consider proclamations, informational items, general discussion items, etc. PURPOSE: To provide a forum where such items can receive full consideration. Currently, informational type items either run the risk of bogging down the regular meetings, or are given short shrift. The Sun House Guild and Observatory Park presentations, the discussion on H.R~ 233, the proposed discussions on Instant Run-off or "choice" Voting, "formula stores", changes in downtown planning, etc. are all excellent candidates for the fifth wednesday. Changes in downtown circulation, the new sign ordinance and other potentially involved discussions are also candidates. V roclamations typically are of limited interest to the general public and with few exceptions (perhaps Domestic Violence Awareness or Police Officers Week, for example) should be shifted to the fifth Wednesday or skip the reading of it and simply make the presentation. The intent is to shift those items that are non-controversial or informational, and those that have the potencial to generate involved philosophical discussion to a forum where they don't impede discussion of items directly related to specific projects or applications. Granted, the line is not hard and fast over what fits on the fifth wednesday as opposed to the regular meetings. This also provides an option for continuing some items to the fifth wednesday when we see that the meeting is running long. I offer this item, itself a perfect candidate for the fifth wednesday, for the Council's consideration. AGENDA ITEM NO: 10c MEETING DATE: June 1,2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE PROJECTS FOR NBC'S 'THREE WISHES' PROGRAM The Mayor has been contacted by a representative of NBC informing him that Ukiah has been selected as a small, rural city for NBC's new prime-time television show entitled 'Three Wishes'. The City IVlanager contacted NBC and received the following information. The purpose of the program is to select people and communities in need and to grant their wishes. A press release states "The full spectrum of wishes ranges from paying tribute to an unsung hero to helping a hopeless family in the grip of a member's life-threatening medical crisis. Also included: living out a mind-blowing sports fantasy, helping to save a dedicated teacher's job, keeping a factory that provides jobs open as it teeters on the brink of closing down--and even saving a desperate local economy on the verge of slipping into debt." They will be fulfilling several people's dreams and have asked if the City has a program or project it would like to see accomplished. We are sending pictures of the City to NBC for publication and will be in communication with the representatives next week for more information. They are moving very rapidly on this idea. Staff is requesting Council's discussioh of possible projects, we will be providing some ideas at the Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss possible projects and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Candace Horsley, City Manager Mayor Ashiku NBC press releases Approved: andace Horsley, City I~nager NBC & Amy Grant are Granting WISHES! If you had one wish bt the world and could aak for absolutely anythirujfrom the heart, ~vhat ~vould it be ? NBC is granting wishes for DESERVING individuals and entire communities for a new prime-time television show entitled THREE WISHES. Hosted by five-time Grammy-winning recording artist Amy Grant, the show will spotlight people who have inspiring or touching stories to tell. There is no limit to the places THREE WISHES can take us and we hope to touch the lives of many along the way. No story is too big or small when it comes to making dreams come true. We are looking for emotional stories of people in need. We want to help deserving people. People who always help others, but never think of themselves. The wishes can involve fantasies, reunions, and personal journeys -- as long as the wishes come from the heart. There are no limits to what this show can do or how many lives it can change. Anything you can imagine will be considered and price is not an object. So ask yourself, if you could make a life-changing wish, what would it be? Would you like to surprise someone with a wish? Can we help grant a wish to an entire town? If you would like to ask for a wish or nominate someone deserving, please e-mail maxs@glassmanmedia.com or call 818-566-8257 for more info. To be considered for the show, every submission must include the following: } Background info on the person(s) being nominated } Tell us what WISH should be granted...be creative and be specific! } PICTURE of nominee and all contact info (Name, address, phone #, etc.) } Please put name, city and state located in the subject line...sorry no home makeovers! Ser,d mail to: C:\STI N (; ,June Road Productions 212 Evergreen Street Burbank, CA 9150,5 News - word NBC "Grants" Wishes in New Reality Pilot/Special 03/17/05 NBC 'GRANTS' WISHES IN NEW REALITY PILOT/SPECIAL 'THREE WISHES,' HOSTED BY GRAMMY WINNER AMY GRANT Page 1 of 2 Multiple Grammy-winning Recording Artist to Make Unbelievable Dreams Come True in Heartwarming New Series (BURBANK) March 17, 2005 - NBC will be making "Three Wishes" come true in a new special/backdoor pilot starring five-time Grammy-winning artist Amy Grant in an unscripted format in which Grant will lead a team of experts to a small town to help make the hopes and unbelievable dreams come true for deserving people. "Everyone secretly wants the chance to fulfill a lifelong wish that seems beyond their grasp -- and this show will help transform those dreams into a life-changing reality," said Jeff Gaspin, President, NBC Universal Cable Entertainment & Cross-Platform Strategy, who made the announcement. The full spectrum of wishes ranges from paying tribute to an unsung hero to helping a hopeless family in the grip of a member's life-threatening medical crisis. Aisc included' living out a mind-blowing sports fantasy, helping to save a dedicated teacher's job, keeping a factory that provides jobs open as it teeters on the brink of closing down - and even saving a desperate local economy on the verge of slipping into debt. Said Grant: "When I heard about this show, I was extremely moved by NBC and the production company's concept to provide incredibly positive changes in the lives of different people. Seeing the initial prep work the producers had done for the pilot episode gave me reason to look at my own life -- and remind myself, once again, to never underestimate the impact that one life can have on another. "1 knew that whoever wound up hosting this show was going to have a front-row seat to some pretty amazing interaction with some very deserving people. I'm so glad my name was thrown into the pot and I look forward to working with NBC Universal Television Studio and executive producer Andrew Glassman -- and I hope that together, we are able to make a lot of dreams come true." Each wish will involve a deeply personal story and viewers will follow the deserving families as Grant and her team of experts help revive their wishes and bring them to life. Andrew Glassman (NBC's "Average Joe" seasons 1-4) and Jason Raft (NBC's "Average Joe" seasons 1-4) are executive producers. "There's an incredible diversity to the people we are going to meet and the heartwarming stories we are going to tell along the way," said Glassman. "We have already started to feel the magic, as people started sharing their wishes with us. While our team is there to help, ultimately, this show will be about people helping people make their wishes and dreams come true." Production on the pilot has already begun. "Three Wishes" is executive produced by Andrew Glassman and NBC Universal Television Studio. If you would like to tell us about your wishes -- please Icg onto www. nbc.com and click on contestants. http://www.wordrecords.com/news/index.isp?article=23620000 5/27/2005 'News'- word Page 2 of 2 Preparing to launch her 20th project, Rock Of Ages...Hymns & Faith (Word/Curb/Warner Bros.) on May 3, Grant has sold well over 25 million records worldwide and has been honored with five Grammy Awards. Inducted into the Gospel Music Hall of Fame in 2003, Grant has further been noted for her humanitarian contributions, receiving among other honors the Pax Christi Award from St. John's University in 1994. http://www.word records.com/n ews/index, isp? article= 23620000 5/27/2005