Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin 01-05-05 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on January 5, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed, at 6:30 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: Risk Manager Archibald, Community Services Director DeKnoblough, City Manager Horsley, City Attorney Rapport, Community Services Supervisor Sangiacomo, Museum Director Smith-Ferri, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele, Planning Director Stump, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek, and City Clerk Ulvila. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Rodin led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3a. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 177 2004 Councilmember McCowen recommended correcting the spelling of Dr. Graeber's name on page 9, third paragraph. M/S Baldwin/Rodin approving the Regular Meeting minutes of November 17, 2004, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3b. Re_clular Meeting Minutes of December 17 2004 M/S McCowen/Crane approving the Regular Meeting minutes of December 1,2004, as presented, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3c. Joint Meeting of the City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District of December 157 2004 Councilmember McCowen noted a correction on page 1, the second to last paragraph should read, "Discussion continued with regard to the number of allocations split between the City and the UVSD, applying smart growth principals for potential infill within the City limits of Ukiah, the City and County's General Plans, and the option of establishing no set ratios between the UVSD and the City." M/S McCowen/Rodin approving the Regular Meeting minutes of December 15, 2004, as amended, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 1 of 29 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S McCowen/Rodin approving items "a" through "e" of the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Rejected Claims for Damages Received from Katherine Graham and St. Mary's Catholic Church and Referred to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund; b. Adopted Resolution 2005-25 Approving Records Destruction; c. Rejected Proposals Received for Conference Center Roof Overlay; d. Received Notification of Purchase of 18 Wildland Fire Shelters in the Amount of $5,575.86; e. Approved Budget Amendment of $18,720 to the City of Ukiah Water Storage Expansion Project, Account #840-3850-250-000, for Increased Costs for Quality Control Testing by Rau and Associates. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Bruce Foster, past chairman of the Greater Ukiah Chamber of Commerce, introduced John Latimore, the Chamber's new chairman. John Latimore stated he hopes the City will look to the Chamber as a source of commerce and resourcefulness. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8a. Approval of Renewal of Sun House Guild & City of Ukiah Agreement and Authorization for City Manager to Execute Agreement Museum Director Smith-Ferri provided historical background of the City's involvement with the museum since 1975 when the City acquired legal title to the Sun House and Carpenter-Hudson Estate. In 1978 the City helped establish the Sun House Guild and formalized that relationship with a 25-year agreement. As this agreement is scheduled to expire, it is necessary to adopt a new agreement. She thanked the Endowment Board and Sun House Guild and introduced their members to the City Council. Ross Beck, Chairman of the Sun House Guild, provided a presentation on the Grace Hudson Museum and Sun House; identifying it as the City's cultural legacy. He discussed the reasons for its success and stability, the growth of the estate and gifts received, exhibits and programs presented at the Museum, and thanked all of the volunteers, docents, board members, Guild members, City staff, and contributors for their efforts. It is their hope to be able to fund all of their growth in the future. M/S McCowen/Crane approving proposed Sun House Guild/City of Ukiah agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. m PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 2 of 29 7a. Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Project Planning Director Stump explained that on December 15, 2004, the City Council tentatively certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Project. Council also directed Staff to return on January 5, 2005 with the required Resolution formally certifying the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and responses to four comments made by Vice- Mayor Baldwin. Council also directed Staff to include findings in the Resolution as to why the mitigation measure requiring a Specific Plan or other type of comprehensive planning document should not be required prior to the development of the Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation (RCHDC) affordable housing project. This was accomplished on page 18 of the Resolution. As discussed at the December 15, 2004 meeting, the EIR identifies one significant growth-inducing impact that cannot be successfully mitigated or avoided with build-out of the Brush Street Triangle: "Building-out traffic would result in insufficient vehicular storage capacity on East Perkins Street between Orchard Avenue and the southbound Highway 101 ramps to accommodate eastbound traffic." Leonard Charles, consultant for the City of Ukiah, discussed his responses to questions and concerns raised at the December 15, 2004 Public Hearing, which are attached to the Staff Report submitted to the City Council. He also discussed the project of constructing a four-lane bridge across Orr Creek and noted that it is difficult to predict what type of development will occur in the future north of the bridge. He noted that many of the mitigation measures are contingent upon the bridge project and clarified why a specific plan was recommended by.Staff. Director Stump explained, that the RCHDC project is presently undergoing a project specific EIR and will be held to the same standard as any other project. Public Hearing Opened: 7:00 p.m. Members of the audience speaking in support of the EIR were: Emmett Jones and Jim Mulheren. Members of the audience speaking in opposition to the prepared EIR and in support of a comprehensive planning document for the RCHDC project were: Judy Pruden, James Connerton, Bill Randolph, Diane Zucker, Susan Sher, Ken Anderson, and Bruni Kobbe, Public Hearing Closed: 7:34 p.m. Council discussed whether to move forward with this item for discussion and if need be, continuing the matter to later in the agenda. It was also suggested that some of the agenda items be continued to the next meeting to allow adequate time for discussion of this item. M/S Baldwin/Rodin to continue the Public Hearing to the next Council meeting. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 3 of 29 Discussion followed relative to the motion and whether to open the meeting to further public comment. John Mayfield drew attention to a point of order; noting that Council closed the Public Hearing. City Attorney Rapport discussed Council's options regarding reopening the public hearing or continuing the matter to allow for further public comment. Vice-Mayor Baldwin noted his concern with the consultant, Leonard Charles, having a possible conflict of interest since he is a consultant for RCHDC. Discussion followed with regard to scheduling continuation of the Public Hearing on a day other than the regularly scheduled Council meeting day of January 19th. There was also discussion of continuing other agenda items so that more time could be allowed to discuss this item. Council considered soliciting audience comments in writing up to the date of the next Council meeting if the matter were to be continued. M/S McCowen/Baldwin to allow people to submit written comments through January 12th. Further discussion was had with regard to the motion and whether to continue consideration of this matter to later in the meeting. Mayor Ashiku noted his concern with the long agenda and wanted to ensure that the audience would be given an opportunity to speak on the items that interest them. He therefore polled the audience to establish the order of the agenda items. Extensive discussion followed concerning how to handle the matter. It was the consensus of the City Council to continue this item after hearing item 9b on the Agenda. Recessed: 7:54 p.m. Reconvened: 8:03 p.m. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9c. Discussion of and Possible Introduction of Ordinances Regulating Panhandling and Camping in the City of Ukiah Police Sergeant Taylor discussed his Staff Report to Council in which he explained specific concerns of the community and business owners due to aggressive panhandling. He has been meeting with community groups, private property owners, and business owners regarding their concerns. The increased call volume involving transients is overburdening a police force that is already understaffed and who are unable to assist citizens in many cases due to the lack of regulations regarding these issues. An ad hoc committee was formed by the Homeless Services Planning Group (HSPG) to discuss specific problems with the transient population, particularly in the Ukiah Valley. In the opinion of the Police Department, the ad hoc committee and the HSPG, the proposed Ordinances will provide the police with useful tools to alleviate Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 4 of 29 some of the problems which are described in the "Findings" contained in each Ordinance. City Manager Horsley reported that Councilmember McCowen spent a lot of time on this issue prior to becoming a Councilmember and has made some suggestions. She explained that the City Council and community groups have made an effort to provide shelter for the homeless in the City. It is now time to consider the health and safety of Ukiah citizens and the need to control panhandling and camping in the City limits. Public Comment Period opened: 8:12 p.m. Members of the audience that spoke in support of the proposed ordinances were: Gary Ackerstrom, Rod Johnson, Jeff Spharler, Barbara Nichols, Debbi Rebottaro, Mark LaRose, Ragene Brown, Judy Pruden, Ross Liberty, Kathleen Stone, and Kelsey Rivera. Members of the audience that expressed concerns with the proposed Ordinances were: Ben Thomas, Daphne MacNeil, and Dotty Coplen. Public Comment Period closed: 8:42 p.m. Considerable discussion followed regarding the proposed Ordinance restricting panhandling in the City. It was noted by Staff that calls to the Police Department complaining about transients increased by 176% last summer, compared to 2003. Concern was expressed for the safety of the public and it was noted that the Ordinance is not an attempt to criminalize homelessness. Instead, the City wants to control bad behavior. Aisc discussed were the many services in Ukiah that are offered to homeless individuals, such as Plowshares for meals, however, many of the homeless do not want to use the services available. In addition to the Police Department, the City's Fire Department has been dealing with homeless issues concerning fires. City Attorney Rapport advised that a revised panhandling Ordinance with minor grammatical changes was distributed to Council. He summarized the intent of the revised Panhandling and the proposed Camping Ordinances. M/S McCowen/Rodin introducing Panhandling Ordinance by title only. Councilmember Rodin referred to the "Section One. Findings and Declarations" on page 1, and recommended adding item "e" under number 3 to read, "Environmental degradation resulting from camping. City Attorney Rapport explained that if Council approves the recommended change to the Ordinance, the Ordinance would still be able to be adopted at the next Council meeting. The motion was revised to include Councilmember Rodin's recommended addition to the Ordinance, and agreed upon by the makers of the motion and the second. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 5 of 29 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Clerk Ulvila read the title of the Ordinance, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Adding Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 9, Entitled "Unlawful Panhandling" to the Ukiah City Code." M/S McCowen/Baldwin introducing an amended version of the Camping Ordinance by title only; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. City Clerk Ulvila read the title of the Ordinance, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Revising the Ukiah City Code by Repealing Division 2, Chapter 4, Thereof, Entitled "Trailers and Trailer Camps" and adding thereto Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 8, entitled "Camping". M/S McCowen/Rodin introducing Ordinance; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Apr)ointments to the Planning Commission Mayor Ashiku appointed Mike Whetzel to the Planning Commission to a term expiring November 2006. Vice-Mayor Baldwin appointed Ken Anderson to the Planning Commission to a term expiring November 2006. Councilmember Rodin appointed Judy Pruden to the Planning Commission to a term expiring November 2008. Councilmember McCowen appointed Kevin Jennin.qs to the Planning Commission to a term expiring November 2006. Councilmember Crane appointed Jim Mulheren to the Planning Commission to a term expiring November 2008. Continued 7. PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) 7a. Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Orr Creek Bridge and Orchard Avenue Extension Proiect Leonard Charles, City of Ukiah consultant, advised that Council needs to consider whether it has adequate information in the EI R to make an informed decision. There was a substantial public discussion but that discussion focused on the suggestion in the Addendum that the City not require the preparation of a specific plan or comprehensive Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 6 of 29 plan for the Brush Street Triangle area before approval of the RCHDC project. Council has all of the information and can certify the EIR, and then make the decision of 1) whether Council wants to approve the bridge and road project, and 2) if it does, will Council require, as stated in the Draft EIR, that a comprehensive or specific plan is completed before any projects can be approved. 'Mr. Charles responded to a question posed by Vice-Mayor Baldwin earlier in the meeting concerning whether it is a conflict of interest for him (Mr. Charles) to work for the City while being employed to prepare the EIR for the RCHDC project. Mr. Charles explained that his firm has an approved contract with the County of Mendocino, not with RCHDC, to prepare an EIR on the RCHDC project. His firm will provide those services to the County, in the same way that it has provided services to the City on this EIR, with objective information to allow the decision-makers to make an informed decision. His firm has no personal interest in the construction of the bridge, the road, or the RCHDC project. It is responsible for preparing an impartial analysis of the environmental impacts of the projects it is hired to evaluate. He clarified that his firm did not say that the City Council should not require RCHDC to prepare a specific plan. He explained that the reason why the RCHDC project was mentioned throughout the EIR is because it was the only change from two years ago. Staff is providing Council that information to make an informed decision. Vice-Mayor Baldwin expressed his concern that Council is rushing the decision on the EIR. It is his opinion that the negative impacts in the EIR are underestimated and that the mitigation measures are inadequate. The EIR seems inadequate because it erroneously claims that all negative impacts but one can be mitigated to "less than significant levels using measures it suggests". He discussed the measures the EIR suggests for traffic and stated the public should be aware that all of the traffic mitigations are nothing but signals and/or roundabouts. He discussed how the EI R underestimates the negative traffic impacts to the City of Ukiah. He referred to page 2 of the Staff Report in which it stated that this City Council generally agreed that a specific plan may be impractical because of its cost and inflexibility. He stated that he did not hear any member of this City Council say that the plan was inflexible and very few Councilmembers stated it was too costly. He discussed the Addendum in which City Staff and the consultant recommended the possibility that Council eliminate a specific plan for the entire 92 acres. In the EIR it was listed "as a major recommendation". He did not understand how this change could occur in several months from a major recommendation to something that is too inflexible and too costly. He questioned what will be costly. He questioned the cost of the inadequate mitigation measures upon motorist, taxpayers, pedestrians, and cyclists in the City. He went on to discuss the Statement of Overriding Considerations and noted that the consultant stated that only one of all the traffic problems can't be mitigated. He addressed the problem with traffic stacking on Perkins Street and the request by Staff and the consultant for the Council to make a Statement of Overriding Considerations and to find that the "economic, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable risk arising upon build-out within the study area". He asked Council how it could, in good conscience, make that finding. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 7 of 29 Vice-Mayor Baldwin stated one reason for the project in the first place was to relieve the traffic problems on Ford Street and Clara Avenue. The other reason was to create a north-south corridor other than State Street. It was his opinion that the benefit to Ford and Clara will be temporary pending significant development of the Brush Street Triangle. The temporary alleviation will accrue only when Brush Street is reconstructed to Orchard Avenue and State Street. He was unsure if the road agreement guarantees that will happen right away. It was his opinion that the EIR lists a signal at the intersection of State and Ford Streets which demonstrates that the consultant is aware that the bridge will provide only temporary relief to the Wagonseller's neighborhood. The project objective of providing an alternative to State Street only applies, in his opinion, to people from the Ukiah High School, Empire Gardens, and County complex areas to the commercial areas nearer Orchard and Perkins Streets. He challenged the Council, the consultant, and the public to tell him there are long term economic, social, and technological benefits to the City from this project. He saw a temporary economic benefit to the construction workers and developers; however, he did not foresee any long term economic, social, and technological benefits to the City from this project, noting that the project is outside the City limits. He referred to page 3 of the Staff Report and the Resolution pages 23 through 24 that Ford Road and Orr Street, as well as Brush Street "already provide access to the study area allowing for development in the study area without construction of the project. The study area could be built out if the project were not constructed." He stated that it is his belief that these statements could be referred to as a falsehood. The pressure to build the bridge, regardless of how it impacts the citizens of Ukiah and the City, is fostered almost exclusively by Brush Street Triangle landowners, developers, and the County which seeks sales tax revenue from such development. The City would not receive any sales tax revenue. He further addressed his views concerning a possible conflict of interest between the consultant and RCHDC because at this time, the City is advocating for the bridge, but it doesn't need it. He felt that the consultant has to be aware that certification of the EIR before the Ukiah City Council and subsequent bridge construction is the only conceivable mitigation for the negative impact to the Brush, State, and Low Gap intersection, and more importantly to Orr and Ford Street from the construction of the RCHDC apartment complex. It was his opinion that the only way for a new EIR for the RCHDC project to avoid impacts, which can't be avoided by RCHDC, is for the Orchard Bridge to be in place. He referred to the Resolution on pages 1-1 and 1-4, and inquired as to how the City Council could certify the EIR as adequate and complete. He asked how Council can agree with an EIR which has determined that all the project's adverse environmental impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels, when the City cannot guarantee funding. How can the City guarantee its residents funding for only certain inadequate traffic mitigations? We can't guarantee creek protection, aesthetic improvements, recreation, open space or decent circulation in the Triangle because it's outside the City's jurisdiction. It was Vice Mayor Baldwin's opinion that if the City approves the bridge, everything that happens in the Brush Street Triangle, other than some traffic impacts, is outside the City's jurisdiction. It was also his opinion that the Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 8 of 29 City would have no power to convince the County to go with a specific plan. It does say that these mitigation measures as discussed in the EIR will provide guidance to the County of Mendocino in mitigating these impacts. He felt that would be inadequate protection for the health and safety of the citizens of Ukiah. He stated that the City should think long and hard before the City trusts the quality of life inside the City limits to the assumption that the County will heed that guidance. The EI R also says that according to the consultant the road improvement and land use agreement with the County only "partially mitigates the projects growth inducing impacts". He asked the Council to consider, before certifying the EIR as adequate, if partial mitigation is what it wants to achieve for the citizens of Ukiah. Mr. Charles responded by stating that Vice-Mayor Baldwin has identified reasons for him to deny the project He explained that as the preparer of the EIR, Mr. Charles cannot do anything about the traffic mitigations with which Vice-Mayor Baldwin is in disagreement. He has hired one of the most well respected traffic engineers in the west to evaluate traffic impacts. Their conclusions and recommendations were based on traffic counts and projected increases in traffic based on the assumed future uses. He noted that the proposed roundabouts were not contained in the EIR, but come out of an MCOG study. He does not have any recommendations for roundabouts in the EIR. The traffic mitigations in the EIR involve signalizing various intersections. Those intersections will all function within the City's acceptable level of service except for the Perkins Street-Highway 101 ramp intersection. That is the reason why the City would have to issue a Statement of Overriding Consideration. In that regard, his firm does not recommend the City do that. That is not their role. They did, however, say that if the City wants to approve this project, the City will have to do that. Staff has prepared findings if the Council wants to approve the project. He stated that it is not his firm's recommendation to Council that they approve the Statement of Overriding Consideration. They have no issue on the project and are not advocating for the bridge or RCHDC. As stated earlier in the meeting, RCHDC has submitted an application to the County and will go ahead no matter what the City's actions are at this meeting. He explained that the traffic scope of work for the traffic analysis his firm has completed for that EIR has two parts to it. The traffic engineers are going to look at the traffic impacts of the RCHDC project if the bridge and road are or are not built, so the impacts in both cases can be seen. He explained that Vice-Mayor Baldwin's referral to the cost of the traffic mitigation is all part of the City's road plan with the County. It is those mitigation measures; the signalization, and the other road improvement, that will be paid by whatever development occurs both within the Brush Street Triangle and any other projects that contribute traffic to that particular intersection. There will be a cost share, as required by State law AB1600, among those projects which contribute traffic. Each project's share of that cost will be determined based on how much traffic would be generated in that intersection by that specific project. Director Stump explained that in Vice-Mayor Baldwin's reading of the Addendum, he indicated that Staff suggested language to amend the mitigation about the specific plan to suggest that the specific plan be eliminated for the entire 95 acres. That is not correct. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 9 of 29 Vice-Mayor Baldwin drew attention to page 1, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Executive Summary of the Addendum Where it states that "the City may wish to modify the mitigation measure requiring preparation of the site development plan and specific plan for the entire Study Area prior to allowing any new development." Mr. Charles clarified that it may be bad language on their part. What it means is that rather than any new development in the area, that the City could limit it. Director Stump explained that it is clearly defined in the Resolution at the top of page 18. He noted that it does not say the City is proposing to eliminate the specific plan for the entire 95 acres. He read the mitigation measure, "Develop a specific plan for the study area prior to allowing new development. The suggestion is that prior to approving any new development in the study area, other than residential development on the eight acres of RCHDC property, APN #002-101-17, the County or City, depending on which entity has jurisdiction, shall require the development approval of a specific plan or other comprehensive planning documents for the study area." It is clearly only for the eight acre RCHDC piece of property and not the entire 95 acres. Councilmember Rodin discussed with Director Stump the difference between a comprehensive planning document and a specific plan. Director Stump explained that at the time of the land use agreement, Council directed Staff to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors calling for some sort of planning effort in the Brush Street Triangle. That is what the language in the Resolution refers to. He read a portion of the letter to the Board of Supervisors which stated, "The Council concluded that it was very important that a land use planning document be prepared for the strategic area. The purpose of the document would be to guide and manage land use and construction proposals in an effort to avoid unplanned, disorderly development. Accordingly, the City of Ukiah, urges Mendocino County to facilitate the preparation of a land use planning policy document for the Brush Street Triangle area. This document or concept plan could include a discussion of transportation options, circulation, community design, public services and infrastructure, general locations for land uses including mixed uses, protection of Orr Creek, and identification of open space options. City staff is available to support and contribute to that effort." That is what Staff meant by a comprehensive planning document. He reiterated that for the last two years when Staff has been working for the Council to develop the land use/roadway agreement, they have been improving their relationship with the County. Since the conclusion of that effort and since approaching the Board in September 2004, he has been meeting regularly with County Planning Director Ray Hall to discuss a wide variety of options for this prOject and other projects as well. That effort will continue. Councilmember Mc Cowen noted that one of the comments made by Mr. Charles, which was also made in the Addendum, is that, when specific objections were raised, certain assurances were made. One of the assurances, or broad statements, was that it is a growth inducing impact and CEQA doesn't require you to consider it. Although it's true that CEQA doesn't require that growth inducing impacts be considered, in the revised draft EIR, it states that the City requested that growth inducing impacts be Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 10 of 29 studied and mitigated. He felt that because of the RCHDC project and the concern that people have that the project would move forward in advance of the specific plan, much of the focus has been on the Addendum. However, the City Council has been asked to certify the RDE EIR and its mitigation measures. He referred to the road improvement land use agreement between the City and County dated August 25th, that states that the City takes the position that under the requirements of CEQA, it cannot Certify the RDE EIR and undertake the construction of the Orchard Avenue bridge improvement unless it can find that the accumulated adverse environmental impacts within the City of Ukiah from the construction of the Orr Creek Bridge, including development in the Brush Street Triangle, are reduced below the threshold of significance. The City's position is that it has to consider and mitigate all of the impacts that will take place in the Brush Street Triangle. City Attorney Rapport responded that the City, in order to approve the EIR, has to mitigate the impacts within the City that result from the construction of the bridge, including development within the Brush Street Triangle; meaning the impacts that development of the Brush Street Triangle would have inside the City limits. Councilmember McCowen advised that there was an implication that the timeline specified in the road improvement agreement compelled the Council to act in a hasty manner, when actually it doesn't. Upon further review, he found that the 45 day period referenced has not yet run and the City has not yet notified the County whether it accepts the County's action on adoption of land use regulations. Some of the things that were said at the last meeting that pushed Council towards making a decision were not as valid as it may have seemed. Of particular concern to him was when he questioned the construction and the opening of the bridge without improving Brush Street and the assurance was made that Brush Street will be improved to the railroad tracks. However, it would only be improved to the railroad tracks going west. The improvement to Brush Street is not part of the project and the City is hoping a grant will be approved to fund those improvements. It does nothing for Brush Street west of the railroad tracks and it is his belief that once the bridge has been constructed and the connection has been made to Brush Street, there will be, without any further development, a significant amount of traffic on Orchard Avenue to Brush Street to the State Street/Low Gap Road intersection. It is contemplated in the EI R, according to Director Stump, that there will be minimum impact from that new traffic. He was unable to acquire the accident statistics at that location today. He stated he is uncomfortable approving this without knowing that Brush Street would be improved to State Street in a timely fashion. Otherwise, he felt the City would be temporarily taking some burden off of Clara Avenue and Ford and Orr Streets, and shifting it to Brush Street. He explained that the left turn pockets at the State Street/Low Gap Road intersection do not have an independent light and traffic has to make left turns against oncoming traffic and it is a dangerous situation. He concurred with Councilmember Baldwin's statements regarding build-out to the Brush Street Triangle without the bridge and also without the cooperation of the City, unless other sources of water could be developed. Without that bridge, he expressed doubt that build-out would take place to the same level as it would with the bridge, and he thought that part of the Resolution needs correction. He also thought that the same may hold true for RCHDC in that he couldn't imagine that project being constructed without the bridge being constructed as well. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 11 of 29 He referred to page 22 of the final EIR, response E-12, which states, "The predicted levels of services include all mitigation measures." He did not see how it would be feasible to install a roundabout at the Perkins and Main Street intersection. One key mitigation measure that is problematic is the off and on ramps at Brush Street, which is cited as a major mitigation. He inquired what it does to the predicted levels of service when we say one of the major mitigations is unlikely to happen. In that regard, he was disappointed with Response No. 2 to Councilmember Baldwin's comments by Mr. Charles. It was his opinion that in that comment, Mr. Charles backs away from the need for the off and on ramp. Mr. Charles says that it will be given future study and that the City may or may not decide that it wants those off ramps. It was his opinion that if the City Council accepts the information that has been provided by Staff and the consultant, the Council would most likely want an on and off ramp at that location. He felt that the comment should be revised to emphasis the need for those ramps and the resolve of the City to press forward and to try to persuade Caltrans that the City already has an existing substandard situation at Perkins Street and Orchard Avenue, with regard to the freeway interchange, because it was substandard the day it was built. Even though Caltrans' objections are that they can't install the off and on ramps because they are substandard and don't fit the guidelines; the existing interchange doesn't fit the guidelines. That off and on ramp is needed to mitigate part of the problems created by the inferior design of the existing interchange. He takes a strong position on that. He would like further assurances as to what is .going to happen on Brush Street and its priority ranking in the Brush Street Triangle transportation study that was completed for MCOG. As to a priority ranking, he thought it should be at least a No. 2 priority. Mr. Charles responded that Councilmember McCowen's statements regarding the whole issue of growth inducing impacts, is correct and the City requested that they be looked at and that is why this whole discussion is contained in the document. CEQA requires a discussion of growth inducing impacts but doesn't specifically require mitigation for them because they are speculative. He commented on their assessment of growth inducing impacts of the eight acre RCHDC site as if it was going to be 54 units. Councilmember McCowen stated that concern was downplayed at the last meeting and yet it is something that the City specifically calls for to be addressed. Mr. Charles responded that that point was addressed in considerable detail. He noted that the findings are strictly between Council and City Staff to develop. Also, the timeline in the agreement that the City has with the Council is not any of his business. He also did not think it was any of his business concerning improving Brush Street to the railroad tracks. They have identified the mitigation measure and if Council doesn't think it will be done, it would be a consideration when Council decides whether to approve the project. He explained that there is an application into the County for the RCHDC project and his firm will be conducting an assessment and the County of Mendocino will make a decision on the project, with or without the bridge. It would be speculative for him to say whether any other development in that area has been approved by the County. He noted that the matter of a round about was contained in the MCOG Study, not the EIR. He explained that the Addendum is citing the MCOG Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 12 of 29 Study and saying that because of the City's road and land, the study says that either one of those can be used. They put it in the FIR because it is required by the City's agreement with the County. He explained that the on and off ramps at Brush Street are contained in the EIR as a mitigation measure. His firm has no disagreement with Councilmember McCowen's comments regarding that matter. City Attorney Rapport responded to the time issue by stating that he did not think Staff stated at the last Council meeting that there was any provision of the agreement that was forcing Council to make a decision at that meeting or this meeting. It was his recollection that Staff stated at the last meeting that, given the existence of the agreement, Council should base its decision on the adequacy of the EI R and whether it thinks the EIR is adequate or not, not on other policy considerations that were getting a lot of discussion at the previous Council meeting. Staff informed Council that if the goal is to try to keep to the construction schedule that the City has laid out for the construction of the bridge, and given the additional regulatory approvals that were required, the City needs to have the EIR certified before it can get those other regulatory approvals. That's what was causing some concern about time, not any specific provision of the agreement. He agreed with Councilmember McCowen that the City is not obligated by the agreement. The time requirements of the agreement are not requiring the City to act yet. If the City does not agree with the County's Ordinance, the City has 45 days from when the County furnished it to the City, to tell the County what its concerns are. The County has elected to do a two-step process in enacting its Ordinance. The first Step is an urgency Ordinance which is good for 90 days. The second step is the enactment of a permanent Ordinance which will go through the County's Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors. The City has not seen the permanent Ordinance yet so the City's time to comment on it has not started. The City has 90 days from when the County adopts a satisfactory Ordinance to approve the EIR. Whether you calculate that time from the adoption of the interim Ordinance or the permanent Ordinance, the City still has a lot of time remaining. Councilmember McCowen is correct that there is no time requirement in the County agreement for the Council to act at this time. Councilmember McCowen commented that he would prefer to review the accident statistics and the ranking of the levels of hazards at Brush Street and State Street as opposed to other intersections. Mayor Ashiku inquired of Councilmember McCowen that if he knew that the Brush Street improvements were in sync with the development of the bridge, would that reduce his concern for that particular issue? Councilmember McCowen responded affirmatively and explained that he would like to see the bridge constructed. He would ask Staff and the City Manager what avenues are available to Council to possibly secure funding for improving Brush Street or can the priority on that be adjusted. He would like to know what assurances can be made that it would be addressed in a timely manner. City Attorney Rapport was unsure if Councilmember McCowen's concern is with existing conditions at the State Street/Low Gap Road intersection or how that Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 13 of 29 intersection will function once development in the Brush Street Triangle begins to take place. Councilmember McCowen was of the opinion that the intersection is currently hazardous and he thought it would become worse once the bridge is opened even if no further development takes place. He continued to discuss the situation at that intersection. Mayor Ashiku expressed his concern with speculating without any specific knowledge and if Council makes these types of statements, people will assume that it is dangerous, when in fact, it may not be. We still need to make those improvements. He expressed concern that Council make evidence-based decisions and comments. Mr. Charles explained to Councilmember McCowen that his alternative is to include a condition that when that intersection is improved, that separate left turn lights be installed to avoid that conflicting movement. City Manager Horsley noted that at the last meeting she mentioned the alternative of building but not opening the bridge until Brush Street is improved west of the railroad tracks. The County told the City that it did not feel comfortable with having the bridge built until Brush Street was improved and they expected the City to do that, although it is located in the County's jurisdiction. The City told the County that it would not improve the County's road and pay for it out of City funds, when the County will be receiving any revenue from that area. The State Street/Low Gap Road intersection is within the City limits. She did not know if there would be some way with the RCHDC project that the mitigation funding can be used for specific projects and it could be that the RCHDC mitigation funding could go towards that signal area. Councilmember McCowen advised that with those changes outlined by the City Manager, his concerns would be addressed, that is, if Staff and the City Attorney think it appropriate that the City could make those changes. City Attorney Rapport explained that the specific provision that Councilmember McCowen referred to was taken out of the agreement, because there was objection when it went before the County by some people that would potentially be affected by it. However, the agreement does provide that the parties will determine a schedule tied to increased levels of traffic for constructing the recommended mitigations. That is referring to the fact that the City does not have to use the MCOG Study. The agreement calls for the City and County to agree on a schedule for constructing those improvements and it has to be an agreement between both jurisdictions. City Manager Horsley explained that she did not agree with the priority list and, in fact, she made objections to the original list and MCOG actually bumped up the Perkins Street right turn lane and some others. For the City, the Brush Street/State Street intersection and the Perkins Street right hand turn lane onto Orchard Avenue were of utmost importance. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 14 of 29 Councilmember Rodin discussed the two competing needs of 1) getting the bridge constructed while the funds are available and 2) and getting the bridge built. She was in favor of constructing the bridge. She felt it will alleviate a lot of problems in the Wagonseller's neighborhood. She inquired whether the City has the legal authority to keep the bridge closed after it is constructed, until there is a plan and the segment of Brush Street west of the railroad tracks is complete. City Attorney Rapport was of the opinion that the City is in control of when the bridge would be opened to traffic. The agreement does require a schedule for constructing the traffic related mitigations and those mitigations, once scheduled, have to be built according to the schedule, and there have to be sufficient funds to pay for that mitigation so they could be constructed on schedule, or the project won't be approved. It creates leverage for both the City and the County to obtain the funding to make sure that those mitigations are built when we've agreed they are needed. Councilmember Rodin expressed her support for a plan for the area that.it would not be so onerous that it couldn't be completed before the bridge is constructed. The plan could be complete before the RCHDC project breaks ground. The plan that RCHDC submitted to the County proposes a certain number of units they plan to build. She is supportive of taking out that clause on page 18 in the mitigations about the plan in the study area. She inquired about why the problem with stacking on the southbound on ramp at Perkins Street is unmitigatable. There'are so many other impacts that can be mitigated. Why can't we mitigate this one? Mr. Charles explained that it can't be mitigated because the ramp was never designed correctly to begin with. There is not adequate space between Orchard Avenue, the light, and the freeway so that if cars want to go on or off the ramps at that location, and if the light is red, they will back up through the Orchard intersection. It is not feasibly mitigated given the existing right-of-ways at that location. City Manager Horsley explained that a suggested mitigation for future consideration is to close the entrance to the southbound on ramp and have cars routed to Gobbi Street to go south on the freeway. That would eliminate the traffic turning left in front of the traffic going west on Perkins Street. Mr. Charles was of the opinion that the City needs to review the new study conducted by TKM with regard to the interchanges. That study is needed by the City as a baseline to see what is happening from Highway 253 to Lake Mendocino Drive and how it is going to work, especially as it relates to growth in the City of Ukiah. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that the language should be changed from a "specific plan" to a "comprehensive plan". A poll of the Council was taken with regard to whether RCHDC should or should not be exempt from the burden of costs that other owners are going to bear in terms of developing a plan for the entire area. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 15 of 29 Councilmember Crane stated that he does not understand why RCHDC should be exempted from the burden of costs that the other owners are going to bear in terms of developing a plan for the entire area. He would like to know why they should be exempted and if there is an overriding reason. Director Stump clarified that RCHDC is not exempted from mitigation requirements or solving traffic problems. The question is whether the specific plan for build out of the Brush Street Triangle should be prepared prior to allowing RCHDC to pursue development or if the RCHDC project can proceed prior to the specific plan being completed. City Manager Horsley explained that it is up to the County to determine how they are going to fund that plan. They could designate the developers in that area to pay a percentage of the cost which would be determined during the County's planning process. She noted that the County may have other sources of funding for the improvements, such as CDBG or MCOG funds, and may not require developers to contribute their share of the costs for improvements. The only question before Council is whether Council wants to require RCHDC to have a plan in place before it can build or to allow RCHDC to build and then require a plan before any other development commences. Councilmember McCowen stated that if mitigations are exacted, either the owner or the developer of that project would have to pay their proportionate share of the mitigations. It was his understanding that vacant parcels within the City limits, including south of the creek and the parcels at Clara and Orchard Avenue that RCHDC intends to develop; those parcels will also have to pay their fair share of the mitigation fees. Director Stump confirmed Councilmember McCowen's statements. Councilmember Rodin expressed her opposition to carving them out in this mitigation and felt that it should be part of a comprehensive plan for the area. Councilmember Baldwin was of the opinion that the Ukiah General Plan and the Ukiah Valley Area Plan have called for a specific plan and he didn't think the City should send such a message to the County. On the other hand, he didn't think the County has to fund it and the City cannot require them to do it. It's in the hands of the County and that is why he is so nervous about the whole process. Councilmember McCowen explained that if Council insists that it needs to be a specific plan, he would be willing to allow the RCHDC project to move forward. Mayor Ashiku attempted to discuss the differences between a comprehensive plan and a specific plan to the audience. He discussed his concepts of the differences between a comprehensive plan and a specific plan. Mr. Charles explained that a specific plan requires a funding plan and includes what infrastructure improvements are going to be made and who will be responsible for making them. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 16 of 29 City Attorney Rapport explained that the procedure for creating a specific plan as well as its content is specified in the Government Code by state statute. When using the term "specific plan" the same sections of the Government Code provide a procedure and the content for a specific plan, which is basically a general plan, for a limited or defined area. It's burdensome because it's a project under CEQA, so you have to do an environmental review in connection with developing it. There is a procedure you have to go through to adopt it so you have to go through public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and there is a time requirement for public noticing and those types of things. It's as exacting a process as adopting a general plan. That's why it is expensive and time consuming. The comprehensive planning document they are talking about is whatever the City wants it to be. There is no set of requirements for a comprehensive planning document that you have to follow, either procedurally or in terms of content. You have a great deal more flexibility as to how you go about doing it and what it does. He thought the difference is buying into the state law required procedure and content for a specific plan versus coming up with some kind of a planning document that does what you think needs to be done to guide development in that area but it doesn't have to go through all those same hoops and have all of the things in it that a specific plan has to have. City Manager Horsley advised that when the County Board of Supervisors discussed this, and the City took in its letter regarding this issue, there was a general agreement that the Board wanted to do some sort of comprehensive planning for that area with a seamless continuum from the City through the Brush Street Triangle as it is an urban- area. Mayor Ashiku expressed his concern that with a specific plan you really do have to know what you are going to be doing in that area so that the infrastructure can be tuned and specifically designed for that plan. It then makes it much more difficult if things should change, such as the economy or the types of businesses that want to come into that area or if something comes along that the City would rather have, and now we have a specific plan that wasn't designed for that. In some ways, we could be helping ourselves and in other ways we could be shooting ourselves in the foot. Sometimes he thinks that we want to overdo things, and in an effort to make something turn out really well, we confine ourselves so much that we actually hurt ourselves. He advised that he supports a comprehensive plan and the notion that the City work closely with the County in an effort to make sure that development is correct. He also supported Councilmember Baldwin's position that the City begins the process of looking at those pieces of property that we need to annex so the City won't have to go through this ritual. He also wanted to indicate that as much as we might try here, we are not going to be able to be dictatorial, unless we try to hold them hostage with the bridge. He maintained that the City has made an agreement with the County through the previous City Council. To do things that could be perceived or otherwise have the affect of breaking down the confidence we have worked together to build, we once again could be doing something that could be negative and not necessarily give us the result we want. He wanted to be careful that we balance the needs of the people in the neighborhoods and the City of Ukiah with the fact that we are dealing with other governmental bodies that have jurisdiction. We need to be careful or we will lose Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 17 of 29 credibility to some extent. Mayor Ashiku questioned whether closing the bridge until Brush Street improvements are completed by the County could deprive residents in the Wagonseller's neighborhood of the benefits of constructing the bridge. He pointed out that the operation of the Low Gap Road/State Street intersection should be balanced against the benefits to the Wagonseller's neighborhood of allowing the bridge to be used before that intersection is improved. He also expressed concern about the Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue intersection. Councilmember McCowen advised that part of the project does include the right turn lane at Perkins which will, at least temporarily, alleviate conditions at that intersection. With regard to our interaction with the County and the intersection of Brush Street and Low Gap Road, in County Administrative Officer Jim Anderson's letter of comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, his first comment is "It is disappointing to see that the City has removed improvements to Brush Street from the project description." At least as of December 5, 2002 when comments were being received, that was a very important consideration to the County. He is not talking about using the bridge to hold anybody hostage. If there is agreement by the City Council that building the bridge will create or exacerbate a significant impact on Brush Street, the City could build the bridge and not open it. That's the position that he favors. Mayor Ashiku advised that he doesn't have difficulty with that, just that once the Brush Street bridge is finished, we may still not have the traffic to justify the light. Councilmember McCowen noted that we already have a light at Statei and Brush Street. It's a question of those left turn pockets. Originally in 1996, this went out to bid and the bids were higher than what the City anticipated and so the separate signalization for the left turn pockets were removed from the project and it was altered. So, it's just putting back in something that the City thought was important 10 years ago or more when they started the process of redoing that intersection. Mayor Ashiku stated that perhaps we could do something with this tonight if we can reach a satisfactory conclusion regarding keeping the bridge closed and opening it when the Brush Street improvements and the improvements to the intersection are completed. City Attorney Rapport advised that he assumed the traffic study looked at that intersection and made some determination as to when it would reach a level of service that was unacceptable. Mr. Charles confirmed Mr. Rapport's comments, however, he noted that there is a level of service concerning the accident history at or compared to other intersections that wasn't done. If that is something that interests Councilmember McCowen, he can have his traffic engineers look at that aspect as part of the RCHDC project. They can determine what the traffic accident history is at the Low Gap/State Street intersection compared to two or three other intersections along State Street. Councilmember McCowen advised that perhaps the timing of the improvements to that intersection, and that section of Brush Street, could be a subject of negotiations Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 18 of 29 with the County so they are included in the process. This might be the initial position of the City that we would like to see the priority of those improvements advanced. If their position is the same as it was two years ago, perhaps there is a meeting of the minds. It is currently agreed upon by the City and County that a specific plan is a major part of this process. If we are going to back away from the requirement of the specific plan and come up with a comprehensive plan, by whatever description, that is beneficial to the County and it's beneficial to moving forward to the time when other development will be taking place in the Brush Street Triangle. He thought that there is a lot of room for cooperation. Staff, having heard Council's comments, might consider some revision of the Resolution, stating he disagrees with some of the language in there. He thought that the idea that full build-out could take place whether the City does anything or not, is grossly overstated. It's true that they built a lot of mini storage units in that area and they don't use water. Therefore, build-out of storage units verses what the RDEIR says, involving the probable inclusion of three or four big box stores is going to be vastly different. Councilmember Rodin inquired about how the City could enforce a mitigation concerning the preparation of a comprehensive plan if the City can only enforce what happens in the City. We all like this idea but how would it be implemented? City Attorney Rapport explained that the Resolution, as currently drafted, says that the City can't force the County to do that and this is just a recommendation the City is making. The proposed findings state that the City does not have to mitigate all of these impacts that are the result of growth because CEQA does not require that. The draft findings go on to state that even if the City were required to mitigate all of those impacts, it's not feasible for the City to do it because a lot of these impacts are outside its jurisdiction. That's a legitimate basis for not mitigating an impact under CEQA. CEQA specifically allows for that and recognizes that it is legitimate reason not to mitigate an impact if the City does not have the authority and it's infeasible to do it. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if it would be conceivable that staff could be asked to work on some wording changes while Council goes to the other issue on the agenda. City Attorney Rapport replied that Council would have to provide direction as to what they want staff to do. He advised that he thought that on the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" a very simple change would be to say "to allow for some development in the study area" rather than "in the development in the study area" and Council could add more to that if it wanted to. He explained that he heard several Councilmembers express dissatisfaction with the sentence in the Statement of Overriding Consideration that says that the access to the Brush Street Triangle from Ford, north, as well as Brush Street, could allow for the development of the study area without the bridge. He thought that everyone thought that was an overstatement. He thought that the simple way to fix that would be simply to say "to allow for some development in the study area", rather than an unlimited amount of development in the study area, although less development in the study area than would occur with the project. Mayor Ashiku summarized that one method is to give staff direction and ask them to bring back to Council new wording on this and be as specific as we can so we're not Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 19 of 29 trying to rewrite it at the next meeting. Another one is to take a look at the remaining agenda and make some decisions about how to deal with it. City Manager Horsley advised that if Staff could have 15 minutes to work on the language, they feel they could bring it back for Council's consideration at this meeting. Councilmember Rodin reminded Council that they never finished their straw pole regarding the exclusion of RCHDC. Instead Council got hung up on discussion of a plan. Assume it's not a specific plan but a less rigorous type of plan, how does Councilmember McCowen stand on that? Councilmember McCowen stated that if it is less rigorous and it doesn't interfere with their projected timeline, then he is in favor of including it. If there is some thought that a comprehensive plan could take place in a timely manner, he would favor that project being part of that. Councilmember Baldwin inquired if there is such a thing as a focused specific plan that could deal with open space, recreation, and circulation only? Mr. Charles responded "no". He thought that the Council can direct specifically what you like in this comprehensive plan; there isn't a focused specific plan. The Council could identify what needs to be looked at and specify the level of detail. City Attorney Rapport explained that in addition to the wording changes he suggested staff could include the definition of what a Comprehensive plan is. Mr. Stump advised that he read the statement from the letter the City sent to the Board of Supervisors that framed the idea of what a comprehensive planning document would be. That could be included in the language of the resolution to define what we are talking about. If Council is going to direct staff to prepare some language and work on that, then Council could fine tune it, but that was Staff's thought at the time of what was meant by a comprehensive plan. Mr. Charles pointed out that no matter what you put in here, there is already an application into the County, and even though their draft UVAP calls for a plan, they are not requiring that for this project because that UVAP plan has not been adopted yet. He didn't think it made any difference what Council does on this and that the RCHDC application will go ahead without the preparation of a comprehensive plan, unless Council has some hammer that he doesn't know about to stop anything. Mayor Ashiku stated it's a moot point. Councilmember Baldwin felt the City is basically impotent once the bridge is built. The City can't enforce or require anything. Mayor Ashiku stated that the City could not allow the bridge to open, which would be equivalent to not even building the bridge. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 20 of 29 City Manager Horsley explained that Council has an agreement with the County, and the City doesn't now want to add on multiple requirements that say we are not going to open the bridge because we now want this. There is an agreement, however, if there is a safety issue, then that is a different issue. Councilmember McCowen stated that the Council is simply responding to the concerns of the County as expressed in CAO Anderson's letter. City Attorney Rapport explained that he thought Mr. Anderson was referring to paving the two-lanes of Brush Street from Orchard Avenue to Brush Street. City Manager Horsley clarified that it was from Brush Street, to Orchard, to the railroad tracks. City Attorney Rapport explained that Mr. Anderson wanted the City to pay for paving those two lanes and he was disappointed that the project description for this project, which includes the bridge and Orchard, didn't also include Brush Street to the railroad tracks. Mayor Ashiku stated that if Council can decide if it's a comprehensive plan or a specific plan, we've made a big leap. If we can decide whether the Brush Street improvements need to be completed prior to opening the bridge, that would satisfy, he believes, at least two members of the City Council. And if we can't come to some sort of conclusion about the intersection at Low Gap Road maybe we should drop that and just go with the two main things: the comprehensive plan or the specific plan and the Brush Street Improvement as a condition, and move forward on this tonight. Councilmember McCowen stated that he stands by the comments made earlier about Brush Street and he is not suggesting that the City force the County to do anything with it. Mayor Ashiku stated that that's what they were just talking about; putting into this some language that doesn't open the bridge until Brush Street is finished. City Attorney Rapport inquired of the Mayor that when he says "Brush Street", does he mean the intersection with State Street or is he talking about just the paving of the road? Mayor Ashiku clarified that he is referring to the repaving of the road so that it will be through access. City Attorney Rapport explained that's been the City's position, so putting that into some part of this wouldn't be a change. He thought it is consistent with the County's expectations right now. City Manager Horsley explained that it is also consistent with the letter they received from the City. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 21 of 29 Councilmember McCowen stated that his point is the improvement to State Street. City Manager Horsley explained that Councilmember McCowen is referring to the Low Gap Road/State Street intersection. Mayor Ashiku explained that the traffic studies indicate that when it reaches a certain level, it would be appropriate. City Attorney Rapport stated that his concern about that is that if the City had facts in the record right now that said that construction of the bridge will instantly result in increasing the safety hazards at Brush and State Streets, then he would feel more comfortable about the City actually imposing a condition as part of approving this EIR. However, those facts are not in the record to support the position at this point. In fact, the facts are the opposite. If the City conducted that safety study, it might find that there is a problem at that location. However, we don't have that data in the record right now. If the City Council modifies the Resolution to include that, the record will not contain the facts to support it. Mayor Ashiku stated that Director Stump has experience with these issues and inquired if he was comfortable with the paving of Brush Street and leaving the signal at State Street and Low Gap Road the way it is until the actual traffic study indicates it needs to be changed? Director Stump responded that the EIR tells us that the level of service, as Councilmember McCowen pointed out, will go from "a" to "b" if the bridge is opened and that is an acceptable level at that intersection. No information has been submitted to dispute that. The safety issue and the antidotal information is something that weighs into it but he felt the EIR stands on its own. City Manager Horsley explained that one way to handle to matter is for Council to direct staff to negotiate that that intersection is the top priority for mitigations, and that Staff meet with County staff and possibly the City's Supervisor, to discuss ways to mitigate that immediately, possibly through RCHDC's contributions. Councilmember McCowen stated City Manager Horsley's recommendation was acceptable. Mayor Ashiku recommended requiring a comprehensive plan rather than a specific plan because flexibility in the current environment is important and environmental impacts will have to be evaluated no matter what type of development accompanies the RCHDC project since any new development would need to follow a specific planning process. He was in favor of utilizing Director Stump's language. Director Stump discussed the portion that describes or frames what is meant by a comprehensive land use plan. Staff said that the "document would include a discussion of transportation options, circulation, community design, public services and infrastructure, general locations for land uses including mixed uses, protection of Orr Creek, and the identification of open space options." Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 22 of 29 Councilmember Baldwin expressed the opinion that it was inadequate language to merely suggest some options. Director Stump replied that staff could take the options out, such as a "discussion of transportation options" and maybe it could be a statement of alternatives modes of transportation instead. Mayor Ashiku advised that Vice Mayor Baldwin suggests that we just leave it as "comprehensive plan" and don't add that language to it. Mayor Ashiku was of the opinion that it is a reasonable perspective. Director Stump advised that we would work with County staff on that. Councilmember McCowen stated that another approach is simply to leave it as "specific plan" since that is what is called for in the agreement between the City and the County and then Council could negotiate something less with the County. City Attorney Rapport responded to Councilmember McCowen by stating that he is not aware of an agreement that the City has with the County regarding a specific plan. Councilmember McCowen corrected himself by stating that it is in the EIR. Mr. Charles advised that the UVAP calls for a comprehensive plan. Director Stump explained that the land use agreement does not have the language of a specific plan in it. He sensed that the majority of the City Council is not going to accept the alternative language suggested by staff that would exempt the RCHDC project. His suggestion to modify the Resolution would begin with the last sentence on the bottom of page 1-17 under "Land Use" by striking the last sentence and then the ensuing language all the way to the center of page 18 would be stricken. The final paragraph under that Land Use section would remain, which begins "Project approval does not require the City..." That would take that discussion of alternative mitigation out of the Resolution, thereby preserving the mitigation that is contained in the EIR. He suggested leaving the final paragraph on page 18 under that section which begins, "Project approval does not require the City..." He recommended keeping that language. City Attorney Rapport inquired if Director Stump suggested changing the language from "specific plan" to "comprehensive land use plan" in the prior sentence? It would be contained in the prior sentence on page 17. Director Stump responded affirmatively. Councilmember Rodin noted that City Attorney Rapport suggested language regarding Overriding Considerations. She thought Council should decide if it wanted to keep that or not. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 23 of 29 City Attorney Rapport explained that he was trying to keep it simple. He noted on page 17 it states "the EIR suggests that a specific plan be prepared" and staff will change the wording to "comprehensive land use plan", per Council's discussions. Director Stump explained that the language, as stricken, as he described it, would tighten the Resolution. Mayor Ashiku explained that it would also address the Wagonseller's neighborhood concerns and that is a positive feature City Attorney Rapport explained that he heard, as is probably true, that it is an overstatement to say that the study area will develop with or without the project. This is stated on page 1-23, the last sentence on the bottom of page 1-23, which reads: "In addition, Ford and Orr Streets, as well as Brush Street already provide access to the Study Area, allowing for development in the Study Area without the construction of the project." He thinks that has been interpreted to say that the same level of development can take place with or without the project. He was suggesting that Council just add the word "some" in front of "development" so that it's not suggesting that the same level of development could take place in there with or without the project. It was the consensus of the Council to find rewording of specific language in the Resolution, as provided by staff, acceptable. Director Stump also suggested that, because of those changes,, it's inherent that similar changes to language in the mitigation monitoring program that is attached to the Resolution be made in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. M/S Rodin/Ashiku adopting. Resolution 2005-26 as modified. Councilmember McCowen noted that he is not thrilled with this, but one reason why he is willing to go ahead with it is because he is confident that the City and County will continue to build on the good working relationship that they have been developing recently and the City will move forward cooperatively to try to address these impacts. For the record, Supervisor Wattenburger has just given us his assurance from the audience. Councilmember Baldwin stated that he thought Council is making a mistake. Motion carried by the following roll McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku. None. ABSENT: None. call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, NOES: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSTAIN: 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8b. Consideration and Adoption of Policy Resolution for Amplified Sound in Parks and Outdoor City Owned Facilities The City Council, by consensus, continued the matter to the January 19, 2005 meeting. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 24 of 29 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8c. AD~)rove Amendments to the Ordinance As Introduced Amending Section 19857 60587 and 6060 of the Ukiah City Code Regarding Noise Regulations The City Council, by consensus, continued the matter to the January 19, 2005 meeting. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8d. Update on Mariiuana Ordinance City Attorney Rapport explained that the City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance which allowed marijuana cultivation in residential zoning districts in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, subject to a limit of three (3) plants per parcel, and permitted cultivation in other zoning districts Pursuant to a major use permit. He went on to discuss recent court cases and options available to the City Council. As a result, it is legal under state law to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical purposes but it is still illegal to do that under federal law. Considerable discussion followed regarding the following issues: · The possibility of the City taxing each plant grown. It was noted by the City Attorney that the public would need to vote on that matter since it would be a tax · The possibility of issuing a permit to cultivate marijuana within the City limits and placing a disclaimer in the permit for the City. City Attorney Rapport confirmed that it would be a good policy to have on the permit form. · Concerns that the owner of a property may not be the grower or even know that it is being grown on their property. · Risks to property and the neighborhood concerning the danger of fire, vandalism, and theft. It was noted by City Attorney Rapport that if the plants were grown indoors, the grower would need to demonstrate compliance with the Fire Code. · Discussion concerning increasing the limit of three (3) plants per parcel to six (6) plants. · Discussion concerning indoor growing. It was noted by Police Chief Williams that if there was evidence the residence was in violation, the Police Department would need to obtain a search warrant to inspect the house. However, it was noted by City Attorney Rapport that the draft ordinance contains a section allowing for a certificate and giving consent to City officials to inspect the property. · It was suggested that the City Council limit a small number of plants per parcel and that only patients be allowed to grow in residential districts. · It was suggested that cards be issued and annual inspections be conducted for those growing indoors. Public Comment Opened at: 11:10 p.m. Members of the audience that spoke to the issue of the proposed Ordinance were Ragene Brown, Tina Gordon, Mark Oswell, Molly Hart, Rose Miller, and Judy Pruden. Public Comment Closed at 11:25 p.m. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 25 of 29 Discussion continued among City Council and staff concerning: · Whether to issue a use permit for growing marijuana within the City limits and if it should be classified as a Planning matter, with the Police Department assisting with enforcement issues. · Council could stipulate that care givers cannot grow within the City limits. A legitimate user could find someone outside the City limits to cultivate marijuana for them. · The possibility of requiring an annual fee based on the requirements of the ordinance. · Obtain permission from the property owner as well as the person in legal possession of the residence. · Adhering to zoning regulations. · The proximity of growing near schools or other areas frequented by children. · A proposal to allow growing within commercial zoning districts. · Allowing the use of greenhouses for growing. It was noted that they would need to be secure against unauthorized entry. · The pungent odor of the growing plants and how many people find it offensive. City Attorney Rapport recommended that if the City Council requires a use permit, there should be a requirement that it won't be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, and that the grower provide notice to everyone within 300 feet of the property. Councilmember Rodin recommended a correction on page 3 of the proposed ordinance, item #14, in the first sentence that the comma be deleted between criminal prosecution and if. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9b. Approval of Orchard Avenue Orr Creek Bridge and Street Extension Proiect and Authorization to Secure Regulatory Permits and Solicit Competitive Bids for Construction City Manager Horsley explained that, since Council approved the EIR for this Project, it allows Staff to move forward to solicit bids for the project. Councilmember McCowen explained that ramps on either side of the bridge to access the south banks of Orr Creek are built into the project and he advised that the City Engineer explained to him that these are needed for maintenance vehicles to access these locations. He noted that on Myron there is a cul-de-sac where there is access with a chain that would access that entire stretch down to the west side of the bridge. He recommended that there be access to the east side of the bridge and that a driveway be installed with a chain across a portion of their parking lot and that driveway would access the south bank as opposed to installing the ramp structure, which may add more to the cost of the project. Public Works Director/City Engineer Steele advised that whenever there is earth moving, it is not an insignificant cost. It was her opinion that the west side of the bridge Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 26 of 29 is a fire access. She was not sure if the Fire Department would want to enter the area from Myron and then have to back out. The City maintenance crews clean the creek at least once a year and fire access is of equal concern. She would have to study the plans further. She noted that the north side of the bridge is under the County's jurisdiction. Councilmember McCowen inquired if Director Steele could go through the process of assuring that these are really necessary, and if not, could they be dropped from the project without delaying anything or causing significant additional expense for redoing the proposal. Director Steele replied that she would need to speak with the street crews, Police and Fire Departments with regard to access and the necessity of installing the ramps. Councilmember McCowen expressed a concern that the bridge not create areas that would be conducive to people taking up habitation and there might me some Iow cost methods that could be employed to preclude that possibility. M/S McCowen/Crane approving Orchard Avenue Orr Creek Bridge and Street Extension Project and authorize Staff to secure regulatory permits and solicit competitive bids for construction, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councilmember Baldwin. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9d. Discussion of Possible Sales Tax Ballot Measure - Ashiku Mayor Ashiku explained the need to discuss the issue of the possibility of a sales tax ballot measure. The most likely time for a Special Election would occur in June 2005. March 11th is the final date to complete the process of calling a Special Election for this ballot measure. It was the consensus of the Council that there is a need for a half cent sales tax increase. Considerable discussion ensured regarding the following matters related to calling a Special Election in June 2005 regarding a sales tax increase ballot measure: · Whether the ballot measure should be a general tax measure. · The significance of a general tax measure would be that to pass the measure, a simple majority vote in favor of the measure, instead of two-thirds, would be needed. · Other concerns within the City of Ukiah that need to be addressed and the need for the Council to look at how these funds would be utilized. · There is a need to make it clear that the City's primary objective is to ensure the public safety of the community. · Council needs to review all departments and operations within the City's budget before coming to a conclusion as to how these resources would be utilized. · Whether to set a sunset clause and how long it should be. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 27 of 29 · The community needs to understand the City is serious about making sure the community understands the sacrifices that may need to occur because the City doesn't have the financial resources. · The City needs to engage the community and have them be part of the budget process with the City Council and provide public discussion. · The Council needs to make a significant effort in support of the proposed ballot measure, explain the budget situation to the public, and how restricted some of the City's funds are. · There is a need to look at how City resources are utilized and improve efficiency. The City has $20 million in infrastructure improvements that are needed in the next 20 years. The public needs to be informed of these issues. · The possibility of having an advisory measure as a companion to the tax measure. · The time frame for getting ballot measures to the County Clerk. · Discussion whether Council should be given the ability to allocate the tax money towards important needs of the City. · Having the resources to meet the needs of both the Police and Fire Departments. Judy Pruden stated that she preferred a policy designating how the sales tax money would be allocated. Michael' Stewart, Vice President of the Professional Firefighters Association, advised that his union has been discussing another tax. It would be difficult for them to get the equipment they need with the short term financing and they wouldn't be able to hire quality people knowing they would only have five years longevity. They supported a general tax if it was specifically for public safety. City Manager Horsley explained that the wording for the ballot measure needs to be adopted by March 11th. Staff will bring it back at the next meeting for Council's consideration/approval. She noted that the City of Santa Rosa recently adopted a 20 year sunset clause. She noted that the Directors preferred a 10-20 year sunset clause. Councilmember McCowen stated that the City should make an effort to convince the Employers Council to support the City's endeavor. Finance Director McCann explained that he was the treasurer for "Yes on Measure N" and felt the support needs to come from the Council. He noted that more budget cuts may come from the governor's budget. Councilmember Crane explained that he is a member of the Employers Council and does not agree with a five-year sunset but he thought it's negotiable. It was his opinion that the Employers Council's opinion would change if the City Council explains the situation more clearly. George Benson recommended that the City take the money from processing extra pot and spend it on public safety. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 28 of 29 It was the consensus of the City Council that Councilmember Crane and Mayor Ashiku be appointed to a subcommittee to meet with the Employers Council regarding -the public safety sales tax ballot measure. Police Chief Williams stated that it is important to note that every department of the City's operation has been operating on a shoestring budget. A five year sunset clause will not make public safety departments any better than they are now. 10. COUNCIL REPORTS None. 11. CITY MANGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Attorney Rapport reported that a Cease and Desist Order from the Water Quality Control Board for the Russian River Flood Control District is going to be revised and will be published tomorrow. City Manager Horsley distributed a report from the Golden Gate Bridge District. She also explained that the notice of intent to appear is for the Cease and Desist Order from the Water Quality Control Board to the Redwood Valley Water District. 12. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code §54956.9(a)) Name of Case: In re: Proposed Cease and Desist Order Against MCRRFC&WCID (Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District) and SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) Not needed. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting January 5, 2005 Page 29 of 29