Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-06-21 Packet
5:00 p.m.- 5:25 p.m. - CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 21, 2006 5:00 p.m. Presentation by Mendocino County Department of Public Health, Building Healthy Communities Review of Preliminary Financial Results For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PROCLAMATIONS/INTRODUCTIONS/PRESENTATIONS a. Introduction of Assistant Engineer, Alan Hasty b. Presentation by Omni Means Ltd., Regarding City-Wide Traffic and Circulation Study 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Joint Meeting Minutes of the City Council and Planning Commission of May 10, 2006 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 7. 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. a. Report of Disbursements for Month of April 2006 b. Notification to Council Regarding the Sole Source Purchase of a Breaker Cabinet from Cooper Power Systems in the Amount of $11,686.57; Authorize Budget Amendment in Same Amount c. Notification of the Expenditure of $8,501.48 To LN Curtis & Son's for the Purchase of OSHA Required Firefighter Protective Clothing d. Status of the Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Power Plant Equipment Refurbishment Emergency e. Award of Bid for Trucking Service to Off-Haul Soil from Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Norcal Waste Systems Hay Road Landfill to Wipf Construction at the Unit Price of $27.93 Per Ton for an Approximate Total of $20,947.50 f. Award of Bid for Purchase of a New Sullivan-Palatek Model D185Q11JD 185 CFM Air Compressor for the Water and Sewer Maintenance Department to Nation's Rents in the Amount of $11,899.91; Authorize Budget Amendment in Same Amount. g. Notification to the City Council of the Purchase of 36,435,000 Gallons of Water at a Unit Price of $2.08 Per Thousand Gallons from Millview County Water District for a Total Amount of $7,469.18; Authorize Budget Amendment of Same Amount h. Notification to Council Regarding Award of Consultant Contract to Sentinel Archaeological Research, LLC for Archaeological Monitoring Services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project in the Amount of $8,894.00 i. Award Bid for Purchase of a 2006 Toyota Prius (Hybrid Vehicle) for the Public Utility Department in the Amount of $23,816.16 j. Report To City Council Regarding The Purchase Of Services From Arrow Fencing To Replace Damaged Fencing At The Ukiah Sports Complex In An Amount of $6,000 k. Approval to Purchase Replacement Computer Equipment from Dell Marketing, L.P. in an Amount Not to Exceed $43,216.94 I. Award Acquisition of a Marking Truck to Line Master Engineering for the Department of Public Works in the Amount of $73,985.46 Funded through the Equipment Replacement Fund Budget m. Award of Bid to Dimension Ford West for the Purchase of a New 2007 % Ton Truck with a Modular Animal Transport Body in the Amount of $36,650.25 and Approval Of Budget Amendment n. Report to City Council Regarding the Purchase of Bollards for Park Entrances from Cai Pipe Bollards in the Amount of $8,254.73 o. Report to the City Council Regarding Acquisition of Services from City of Light Sound and Recording for Sound Management and Equipment Mobilization for the 2006 Sundays in the Park Concert Series an Amount Not to Exceed $8,700 p. Award of Bid to Pitney Bowes, Inc. for the Purchase of a D1950 Premium Package W/Omar Reader Foldedlnserter System in the Amount of $27,542.30 8. 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. Si PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM) a. Approval of a Minor Subdivision Exception to the Frontage Requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance for a Property Located at 733 South Oak Street b. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code to Allow Entryway Trellises to be Constructed Within Front Yard Setback Areas on Parcels in the R-1 (Single Family Residential Districts) 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Certification of Review and Consideration of Information Contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Giant Reed (Arundo Donax) Removal and Riparian Habitat Restoration in the Russian River Watershed Prepared by the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District; Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Access Agreement with Circuit Rider Productions Inc. for Giant Reed Removal and Habitat Restoration on City Property- continued from June 7, 2006 b. Review and Approval of Modifications to an Ordinance Introduced by the City Council of the City of Ukiah Amending and Deleting Certain Sections from Division 9, Chapter 1 the Ukiah City Code, Pertaining to Subdivisions and Division 9, Chapter 2, Pertaining to Zoning c. Receive Status Report Concerning Downtown and Perkins Street Corridor Community Visioning and Form Based Code Project d. Receive Status Report Concerning Sign Ordinance Enforcement Activities e. Discussion and Possible Introduction of Revised Ordinance Concerning the Appointment of Planning Commissioners - Ashiku 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Members to Demolition Permit Review Committee; Investment Oversight Committee, Paths Open Space, and Creeks Commission; and the Traffic Engineering Committee b. Discussion and Possible Approval of Memorandum of Understanding for Preliminary Review for Development of Potential Water Supply c. Consideration of Ballot Measure(s) for the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election d. Selection of Council Subcommittee for Chamber of Commerce Contract Discussion and Appointment of Alternate for Chamber Board Representation e. Approval of Letter of Agreement with Vern and Marilyn Watkins 12. COUNCIL REPORTS 13. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 14. CLOSED SESSION Property: 120-A Leslie Street City Negotiator: Candace Horsley Negotiating Parties: City of UkiahNernon Watkins Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 15. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 16 day of June, 2006. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ITEM NO. Presentation DATE: June 21 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION- BUILDING HEALTH COMMUNITIES, MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMARY: Ms. Linda Helland, Health Educator for the Mendocino County Department of Public Health, has requested an opportunity to present a Public Health report on behalf of the Healthy Lifestyles Action Team of the Mendocino County Public Health Advisory Board. A copy of the presentation materials is included as Attachment 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: NA Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Linda Helland, Mendocino County Department of Public Health Sue Goodrick, Risk ManagedBudget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1 - Building Healthy Communities Presentation Materials Candace Horsley, City Manager i · 0 0 ~0 .= o~~ (D 0 0 I el, ml ~ 0 · I oCN 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o o~© 0 0 0 0 U 0 ~ · I"'""~ u 0 r-- o o ~ mt-.- 0 C) E 0 I11 (D c~ 0 '"c~ ~ 0 0 0 CD 0 · c~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 c~ "~ ! I © t · · o 0 ;> © o E~~ (].) 0 o ,-- E 0 c-' I11 ~ 0 · · 0 ~ (/) "0 (D 0 FY05-06 Recap Budget and Projected Actual Summary and Highlights General Fund at 06/30/06 · Revenues · Expenditures:' · Loan to Golf Fund · Transfers to GF (Measure S) · Transfers to other Funds · General Fund Balance · General Fund Reserves $10,070,872 $10,658,308 $721,536 $260,650 $111,618 $1,733,668 $962,024 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2004-05 2005-2006 DESCRIPTION Actual Amended Projected Budget Actual REVENUES Property Taxes 574,919 559,454 591,173 Sales Tax 3,309,616 3.31,9,245 3,325,017 Triple-Flip PropertyTax in lieu 776,106 888.432 1,041,294 Franchise Taxes 475,936 645,660 583,376 Franchise Tax - Utility Funds 675,000 675,000 847,600 Other Taxes 777~290 750;000 833r575 Total Taxes 6~588,867 6,837~791 7~222r034 TOTAL REVENUES 9,537;203 9,286,936 10,070,872 EXPENDITURES General Government 1,444,196 2,452,117 2,447,207 Public Safety 5,656,719 6,494,358 6,149,368 Public Works 982,400 1.218.875 1,189,344 Community Services 1,314,466 1.635.6t 2 1,578,425 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,397,781 11,800,961 11,364;344 NET INCOME (LOSS) (before Transfers) 139,422 (2,5t'4,025} (1,293,472) NET TRANSFERS & LOANS (346,083) 501,289 149,032 NET INCREASE OR (DEFICIT) (206,661) I2,012.736). (1,144,440) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3r084~770 2.878.109 2~878r.109 ENDII~G FUND BALANCE 2,878~109 865.372 1,733,668 APPROPRIATIONB BY DEPARTMENT IA .... ti Department Budget I Pmjeeted I ,ur-.__~-_~'I Numb .... dNeme A~tu&l I tVol~et 1001 City Council 4.5,71 0 4.5,226 (484)! 1101 City Clerk 62,143 58,728 (2.415) 1105 El~Uor'm 14,500 30.000 15,500 1201 City Manager 109,270 10~,646 (2,625) 1301 :b'tar~a 218,787 180,430 (27,349) 1401 City Attomey 43.684 79.626 35.942 1 ~01 PIinning 368.217 342.841 (25.376) 1~O1 Per~onneURlsk Management 195,884 210,507 14,823 190~ ~miniltraflve Sul3port 182.0~8 183.471 1.373 1910 City Treasurer 15.201 15.474 273 191 S Gan (~ovt Buildlnga 7,543 ] 34,352 26.80~ 1~4~ Community Otltreech/Publlo Info. 2~.000 18.500 (10.500) 1968 Information Technology 67.877 58.669 (9.208) 1990 Milo General (~vt (le~ 721.538 loan) 182.423 182.123 (300) 2201 Butldlr~ I~ _ r~Ctlon I g0;444 16~070 (21.374) Total 13ene~ (3ovemment 1~730~181 1;725~671 (4.510) pUBLIC SAFETY PUBUC WORKS 3OOl IE~g~.e,-o & Administration 388.083 I 358,229 I (10,754) 3110 IStreet Iv~h"~tenenc~ 633.~7 6~,691 I (~.724) 31~ ITt.m= S~nals 51.708 49.070 I (2.6~) 3~1 IC~=~n Yard 1~219 1~,~ I (38,8~) ro~l Pu~ wo~ 1,218,875 1.189.~ I (~,5~) COMMUN~ SERVICES 8001 IPark~ 805.337 772.478 (32.861) 8008 IAnlmal Control (25.:~..24) 81XX I Recreation 469.315 444,091 0130 [Aquattc~ 138,821 143,~82 5,161 8150 ISun Ho~ae 222~138 217,878 (4.263] Total Community Sel~ic~ 1,635~812 14578.425 (57.187] !Total (~nerel Fund Appropriation . 11 ~079m425 10~842,~08 I (43~.817} | Overall Financial Position Fun~ Balances External Financin9 FUND FUND Funding Issue Matudty InterestBalance NAME BALANCE Source Date Date Rate 6/30/2006 Electric U~ility 23,194,546 Water LIt~TW 1245,5439 Sewe~ ~ 15,973,095 i ..~aste Disposal 62,278 243,576 Parking 259,730 Goff (122,543] Street ~ 3r30,703 Conference Center 3 Total Ente~'ise Funds 41,216,897 General Fund 1,994,318 General Fund Rasen, es 962,924 Special Revenue Fuf~ds 5,893,890 Enterprise Funds 41,216,897 Internal Sen'V,e Funds 339,418 Capital P~ect Funds 2,134,020 3cbt Sel~ice Funds10,680 Expendable Trust Funds 1,596,393 total City Funds 54,147A40 Wtr. Treat. Plant (820.3~8.680.000) 2f1981973.43 CA Water Res. 1992 2022 3.60%· 2,198,973.43 Sewer Treatment Plant (612.3580.682.000) 31633r810.32 St. Wtr. Ra~drceS 1995 2015 3.00% 3,633,810.32 Water Treatment Plant (840.3850.680.000) 14~355~000.00 ABAG Bond 2005 2035 4.50% ' 14,355,000.00 Westewater Treatment Plant (611.7410.x3ocx~x).75~060~000.00 ABAG Bond 2005 2036 4.63% 75,060,000.00 Lake Men(fo. H~m. (550.6903.681.000 & 682.000)16~830,000.00, Electric Revenue 1992 2018 32-6.25% ~16,830,000.00 IlTotai External Debt for Cit~ 112~077~7a3.~ 2 MEASURE S GENERAL FUND [ 2005-2006 I 2006-2007 I Budget I Pr°jected I Department ICityMenager Council Account Name I I Actual I RequestI Recommends Approved REVENUE I/2% Sales Tax (10/2005-9/2014) 1,560,580 1,262,624 1,734,003 1,734,003 1,734,003 Interest income $ 20.199 : $ 21,753 $ 21,753; Miscellaneous Receipts TOTAL REVENUE I $1,560,580 ~1 $1,262,624 $1,754~202 $1~755r756 ] $1r755,7561 EXPENDITURES POLICE DEPARTMENT Salaries and Employee Benefits 217,271 217,271 468,933 468,933 468,933 Operations and Maintenance 19,500 19,500 19,500 Capital Expenditures 80,000 80,000 80,003 TOTAL POLICE 217,271 217,271 568,433 668,433 568,433 FIRE DEPARTMENT Salaries and Employee Benefits 136,138 136,138 136,133 Operations and Maintenance 250,000, 250,000 171,500 171.500 171,500 Capital Expenditures 534,703 534,703 62,000 20,000 20,000 TOTAL FIRE 784,703 784,703 369,638 327,638 327,638 PUBUC WORKS Lnfraetmcture Project (to be defined) 250,000 250,000 250,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1~001~974 I 1,001~974 ~ 11166;071 1,146;071 1~146,071 NET INCOME I $558,606 I $ 260,650 I $ 566,131 I $ 609,685 I S 609,685 Fund - 800 & 801 Operations Fund 550- Bond Payments Fund 555 - Bond Payment Reserve Fund 810 - Operating Reserve Fund 815 - Rate Stabilization Electric System Fund Balance Electric Utility Fund Balances 200405 2005-2006 2006-07 Actual Budget I Projected Budget I Actual 4,704,599 3,977,124 5,321,430 5,362,593 2,319,642 2,373,886 2,296,215 2,300,290 2,087,769 2,088,125 2,088,125 2,088,481 2,091,042 2,158,611 2,158,611 2,238,480 11,571,126 9,717,568 9,717,083 6,926,615 22,774,178 20~315~313 21 ~581,463 18~916r459 Fund 806 - Public Benefits I 2,052,426 I 1,536,396 1 1,613,083 1 1,393,332 1 Separating Fire and Ambulance Budgets (FY05 Data) AMBULANCE FEES sela.,ie~, Regular ( 3 firelightedparamedics) Paramedic Sdpend (11 qualified firefightem) Sakuies, Overtime & Holiday Total Salaries Tot''t Befle~e Total Personnel Coot.: Travel & Coflferen Fire Appemtus Amtx~a~ce Rep~ Dispatch Services Allocated Iflsurmlce Ambubflce Pem~it Fuel~ & ~ Fim-,o~y cost~ (aggregate) Total A~foptad FireFire-Only Ambulance Oepmtment Budget Budget Budget FY0405 FY2004-06 FY2004-O~ 444c~3s.~7 1,217,053.00 3g,800.00 119,047.00 1,375,700.00 362,232.00 I t737~932.00 13,650.00 501.00 218,128.00 42,242.00 7',086.00 9~.<00.00 215,1gg.00 18,000.00 21,6(X).O0 64,377.00 54,670.00 1,125,907.00 249,79~.00 310,560.00 51,672.00 6,809.00 6,541.00 33,790.00 371.00 130.00 11,072.50 9,527.50 5,000.00 218,128.00 31,242.00 11,000.00 3,762.50 5,737.50 215,199.00 Total Non-personnel Coeta: Ambtdance Replacement: $152,500 O 10 ym x 3 units Fire Engine Replacement:. $350,000 0 15 ym x I unit x 46.25% 45.750.00 45,750.00 10,791.67 10,791.67 Total Cepital Replacement Fund CofltrJbution S6f541.67, 56f541.67 Total Costs Net Ambulance Contribution (Cost): 2f369~469.67 1 fO23rOS 1.00, 446;418.67 (1102S,133.00) (1,923,051.00)(2,0~2.0~) To~ Fire Department Tom pe~3nnd Expemes Tom Ot~e~ Expenses Comparative Fire and Ambulance Service Expenses end Revenues 1.148.1071.188.5211.373.9341.467.8421.737.9301,825.164 628r113 613~122 476r321 484~362 574~998 586r347 1,776,2201,801,6431.850,2551,952~34 2,312,9232,411,511 Pemoenel E~se~ Expenses ToM[ Ambulance Average Actual for ye~s FY01-~'Y04 FY 04-05 I~dge~ + fee i~:mase May 01, 2005 FY 05-.06 f~_~_ __~ wi~ 948.955 ' g~..3591.135.6101213.229 1.436.467 531,534 518,648 403.061 4091911 ' 486.584 496,167 lr4801489lt501~207lt638~691lr623r1401r923t0511TgBSr868 199,153 206,163 238,325 254,615 301,4~5 335,465 96.579 94274 73240 74,481 88.412 90,180 330r732 337r438 3531565 374.796 446r419 482i167, 412,109 412.109 412.109 412,109 444,,337 486,020 Net Ambubnce C. ofltrbution (Cost) 81~T7 74A71 S8,S44 37,313 ("&O6~) 3.833 Fire and Ambulance Issues · Cost splits were studied-with FY04-05 budget numbers. · Ambulance revenues support three firefighters - one per shift- and direct costs of ambulance services. If transport is eliminated - fire service will continue to respond to emergency calls; and will have no revenue source to offset direct costs. Issues Going Forward' Rising interest rates increases stated yield but devalue current holdings, so far investment managers have done well but there is interest rate risk in this market. · State budget forecasts do not indicate any plans for more assaults on local revenues- so far. · Landfill costs continue to escalate with State delays, in FY06-07 additional funding set-aside may be needed. · Animal control activity justified new dept. Facility and service payments to County will be forthcoming. m O O ~ o ~ m IT! 33 ITl Z ITl 11 Z ~0 0013 o~o ~ - "n ~ ~000000000 "n · ~o o mo~l~ Z Ill ITl Z -Il mE' o o 1~0 o o o o o o o o 0 o § c:: ITl rtl Z rn z i, m b~b ~ ~ ~b ~8~bbbb~bb ~ bbb ~. ~ ~o oooo oo ooo ~ ~ 0 ~,~ o o~ -,.,I o o ooo oo-~ ~ oo~ o o o '.~ o~ o o c~,'l --~ o ~o o 0 0 ~ o o ~ (D '-- 0 0 0 0 E 0 ~ 0 E 0 ~n ~m ITEM NO. DATE: AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Workshop June 21,2006 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2006 This agenda item is designed to provide a preliminary review of the current year's financial results relative to budget, highlight some key budget issues and introduce some items of interest for the upcoming budget approval process. The numbers discussed are "projected actual" totals developed from actual revenues and expenses record in the accounting system through April, with payroll updates through May and forecasts for the balance of the year. Budget numbers include the original adopted budgets and revisions approved throughout the year. We have included General Fund and Measure S highlights below and will have additional written materials prepared to accompany our oral presentation. Please remember that these calculations are preliminary and subject to revision. General Fund Revenues: Total General Fund Revenues are up $783,936 to $10,070,872 vs. a budget of $9,286,936. significant items include: 1. Property and Sales Taxes $384,243 were over budget for an actual total of 7,222,034. 2. VLF payments (including Property Tax in-lieu payments) were up 264,245 at 1,122,697. 3. Interest earned on cash balances was up 75,841 at 238,838. The City earned an average of 3.247% through April against a 2.7% budget. With a 3.787% result for April we are forecasting 3.7% for next year. 4. Other smaller line items were up a total of 59,607 at 1,487,303. (continued on page two) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept Report Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Mike McCann, Finance Director Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City M~nager Expenditures: Total Expenditures at $10,658,308 (excluding Golf Course loan) were $421,117 under the amended budget of $11,079,425. Highlights include: 1. The General Fund loaned the Golf Course 721,536 to payoff outside financing. This was recorded as an expense in the Miscellaneous Government Department. (100-1990) Excluding this loan and $15,500 unbudgeted June 6 election costs, general government departments were 4,910 under budget of 1,730,581. 2. Public Safety was 344,990 under a 6,494,358 budget 3. Public Works was 29,531 under a budget of 1,218,875 4. Community Services was 57,187 under a budget of 1,635,612 General Fund Balance: The amended budget for FY04-05 forecast a General Fund loss of $1,750,480 (9,286,936-11,037,416). The actual results were significantly better in both revenue and expense (10,070,872 - 10,658,308) for a net operating loss of $587,436 Measure S The Measure S half-cent sales tax increase went into effect on October 1, 2005. The City received the first estimated payment from the State on December 28th. Working with the monthly estimates and the first quarterly reconciliation from the State, we realized that we had over-budgeted revenue from the measure. We had anticipated receiving 1,560,580 but it looks like the final figure will be closer to 1,262,624 a reduction of 297,956 from the original budget. Our assumption had been that the tax would be simply one half of the regular one percent sales tax. This is correct for all usual point-of-sale tax collections. However, for vehicles registered at the DMV, local sales taxes do NOT follow the same rules. Regular sales taxes are collected at the dealer, but local taxes are paid based on the registrants address. Our tax consultants, who monitor our property tax and sales tax proceeds has confirmed this DMV split on the local taxes. We have asked them to review the sales tax detail provided by the State for any other issues. A major concern of both Council and Staff has been to differentiate between General Fund and Measure S receipts and expenditures, when both funds are identical in nature and allowable usage. Our solution has been to establish an accounting structure for Measure S activity which is parallel to the General Fund. We have labeled this "Fund 105 - Measure S". Revenue and interest are received and expenses are paid through the same department and account numbers used in the General Fund. At the end of each year the net fund balance is transferred to the General Fund to add to the final fund balance. At June 30, 2006 we plan to transfer the ending fund balance of $260,650. Staff will be presenting more detailed information at the meeting. AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 3a DATE: June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER ALAN HASTY The City of Ukiah Public Works and Engineering Departments is proud to announce the addition of Alan Hasty as the new Assistant Engineer. Alan was selected for the position based on his education and experience. Alan was born in Virginia and has lived in Boston as well as other areas of California. He, his wife, and son have called Ukiah home for the past 30 years. Alan earned a Bachelors degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, VA. He received a Masters degree in Civil Engineering from California State University, Sacramento. Alan held the positions of Aerospace Engineer for Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories in Bedford, MA; Water Resource Control Engineer for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; Civil Engineer for Sonoma County Public Works; Educational Technology Specialist for the Ukiah School District; and Engineering Technician for Indian Health Service, US Department of Public Health. The Department has already benefited from Alan's software knowledge and abilities. Alan has become the GIS cartographer and AutoCAD designer in the Engineering Department. His mapping and computer skills have been utilized by the Utility and Planning Departments. Alan has also performed some topographic surveying in the field as well as all his computer work. In his free time Alan enjoys reading, gardening, music, and wood working. Please join me in welcoming Alan Hasty as our new Assistant Engineer. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Welcome Alan Hasty as the new Assistant Engineer ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager APPROVED: ~~"~_~ Candace Horsley, City I~nager AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 3b DATE: June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY OMNI MEANS LTD., REGARDING CITY-WIDE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY The City contracted with Omni-Means Ltd. Engineers and Planners, of Roseville, California, on September 22, 2003, to perform a City-Wide Circulation and Traffic Study. This study will serve as an important tool for long-range transportation planning and to identify projects to improve current conditions and support future development. As part of their work, Omni-Means studied several specific problem areas recognized by staff or identified as a concern of the public, as well as various traffic and circulation management concepts and then presented street reconfiguration and other improvement options for the City to consider. Their work also includes an update of the Circulation Element in the General Plan and formulating recommended Traffic Impact Fees for development and preparing a focused traffic signalization analysis at various high-volume intersections. Omni-Means has spent time thus far researching existing plans and studies, taking traffic counts and developing and calibrating traffic models. Several meetings have been held to update staff, and an interactive workshop was held at the Conference Center to inform the public and to solicit feedback. The focus of the workshops was to review the study results of the existing conditions in Ukiah and then to share innovative scenarios that Omni-Means and Staff have been discussing. The consultants progress was delayed due to several major projects that were proposed in the Ukiah Valley that would have greatly changed the results of this study. Staff has worked with the consultants to allow the study to reach completion, incorporate future downtown improvements and possibly smart growth concepts, and consider the possibilities of land use changes outside the City limits. Tonight's presentation of proposed improvements to the City Council will be presented by Associate Paul Miller, who is the Project Manager for this study, and President of Omni-Means and Principal- in-Charge Ross Ainsworth. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation and provide input. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Prepared by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Power P~i%resentation Candace Horsley~City Manager z~ is ST i~ ~oSP~AL ~ MASON ST schOOL mm ~[[ ~ ¥,,k N't/l~ 3t/'~1¥N ON 3^l~a VNI ±33MIS Q~O:DNO3 ~ ClOOM),I:DO-1 mmmm# 0 Z I I I RD ? \ \\ Sc,~OOL H. oSPI%At- MASON ST Z i.d Z 0 F- ~z~- I I mm I / 1S [ )t¥0 SO400t MASON ST VNWS3O / / / LS 5z ~z_ ~Eo DRAFT CITYCOUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING/PUBLIC WORKSHOP May 10, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Crane John McCowen Vice Mayor Baldwin Mari Rodin Mayor Ashiku OTHERS PRESENT Listed below, Respectively CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT None PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Ken Anderson Kevin Jennings James Mulheren, Chair Judy Pruden Mike Whetzel PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Candace Horsley, City Manager Charley Stump, Planning Director Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER a. City Council- Roll Call The meeting of the Ukiah City Council was called to order by Mayor Ashiku at 4:30 p.m. at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken for the City Council and the Planning Commission with the results listed above. 2. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Marlene Werra is not opposed to the development of hiking trails on City property provided they can be appropriately maintained and measures implemented that address trash collection, fire protection, public safety, and other relevant/potential nuisance issues. Robert Werra recommended reconsidering moving forward on the development of planned public hiking trails in the Western Hills. The only justification for development of hiking trails is if there is an obvious need. His observations concerning the use of public County/City parks or other recreational facilities do not support the development of additional facilities in this community. Bill Smith addressed the City Fire Department's intent to provide for 10 miles of fuel break, and stated two miles have been completed in four years. He maintains that portion of the MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page ! May 10, 2006 fuel break that runs through his property. He concurs with Robert Werra's comments concerning construction of public trails in the hillside. g UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Status Report Concerning Public Benefits Program Financials and Request from Menton Builders for Photovoltaic Incentive Rebate Related To Twelve Unit Townhouse Development on Apple Avenue City Manager Horsley recommended dispensing with a formal presentation of the staff report concerning this agenda item. Mayor Ashiku advised that there is approximately $1.9 million dollars in public benefit funds remaining at this time where on the average $86,000 is the amount unused in any given year. Vice Mayor Baldwin stated the surplus of funding has narrowed over the years. Councilmember McCowen addressed the request from Menton Builders for photovoltaic (PV) incentives rebates, and reiterated while use of PV systems is not currently covered in the Public Benefits program this could change when the program is updated. He questioned whether the $4/AC Watt request is consistent with what would likely become a part of the updated Public Benefits program. Electrical Distribution Engineer Liz Kirkley stated the purpose of having a consultant would be to determine the dollar amount per AC Watt, while evaluating how to most effectively use the funds to keep control of the City's load. Councilmember McCowen commented that the nature of the use would assist the City in reducing its peak load demand. Electrical Distribution Engineer Liz Kirkley acknowledged the above statement, and commented the most important aspect of the Menton Builders project is that there are so many high efficiency energy measures incorporated into the structure being built. The City's previous solar rebate incentives have gone towards projects that do not have high efficiency measures incorporated into the .project. Councilmember McCowen stated the point was made in an earlier staff report regarding incentives that those types of energy efficiencies warrant the higher subsidy per watt. Electrical Distribution Engineer Liz Kirkley agreed that this approach is what other city utilities do to promote energy conservation. On A Motion by Councilmember McCowen, seconded by Vice Mayor Baldwin, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Councilmembers present to approve the request for PV incentives, as provided for in the staff report and as discussed above. Vice Mayor Baldwin seconded the motion with an amendment that any further such subsidies be suspended until a program has been developed which provides for an "lnclusionary Housing" concept for such subsidies. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 May 10, 2006 Councilmember Crane requested clarification whether this means for all subsidies or only those subsidies over the amount currently established in the program. Vice Mayor Baldwin noted the novel part of the program pertains to new construction, which is the case for the Menton Builders request. Councilmember McCowen did not favor the motion amendment, and recommended Council look at formulating an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Subsidy requests should not be limited to just applicants that are seeking subsidies for Inclusionary Housing developments and that a rebate incentive program should probably apply to new development. Vice Mayor Baldwin concurred with this statement, and commented before proceeding with future subsidies in this regard that an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance should be in effect. He supported the motion, as originally stated. However, he will oppose any further subsidy requests for significant developments having this type of government subsidy request until some permanent below market units are developed that may desire such a subsidy. City Manager Horsley requested clarification that Vice Mayor Baldwin is referring to subsidies that are outside of the current Public Benefits program. Vice Mayor Baldwin replied "yes." 4. CALL TO ORDER a. Planning Commission - Roll Call 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and Direction Concerning the Draft Revised Hillside Development Regulations Mayor Ashiku recused himself, and stated Vice Mayor Baldwin would conduct the meeting. Councilmember Crane recused himself. Vice Mayor Baldwin suggested the first part of the meeting should be for public testimony where questions/concerns can be directed to City Council/Planning Commission and/or staff. The later part of the meeting should be reserved for discussion between City Council and the Planning Commission. He recommended those persons who commented on the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations at the March 29, 2006 meeting, not duplicate their testimony because the information is already a matter of public record. Councilmember McCowen favored the concept of allowing the Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners adequate time to discuss the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations. Planning Director Stump stated the intent of tonight's meeting is to conduct a second joint meeting to discuss the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations Ordinance. The Planning Commission conducted a series of public workshops and public hearings to discuss draft revisions to the 1982 Hillside Zoning District Regulations. The Commission finalized its review and made a formal recommendation to City Council in this regard. After the City Council conducted a public hearing about the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations, the Council remanded a number of issues to the Commission for further discussion. These issues include the following topics: MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 May 10,2006 1. Second Residential Units - Should they be allowed on hillside property? Staff recommends continued discussion of this matter, and noted that CityCouncil/Planning Commission have the ability with State law to preclude second residential units from the Hillside Zoning District provided the appropriate findings are made demonstrating that such developments would cause specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and general welfare. If it is found that these impacts would occur, that Council/Planning Commission consider disallowing second units in the hillside area. 2. Day Care Homes and the State preemption - Can the City regulate them? The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council was to allow Small Family Day Care Homes (6 to 8 children) and require a Use Permit for Large Family Day Care Homes (up to 14 children) on the basis that while Large Family Day Care Homes and community care facilities in single family dwellings can be regulated through the Use Permit process. The City is pre-empted by State law in requiring a Use Permit for Small Family Day Care Homes. Staff recommends further discussion concerning day care and community care land uses. 3. The Architecture/Design Elements - Are they too strict? Staff recommends further review in this regard. 4. The Number of Allowed Accessory Buildings - Should the number of accessory buildings be regulated or limited? Staff recommends further review in this regard. 5. The Required Soils/Geotechnical Information- Are the requirements too detailed and inflexible? Council heard testimony from local engineer, George Rau, who expressed concern about the complexity and amount of soils/geotechnical information required for projects. He submitted Guidelines for Engineering and Geologic Reports prepared by the State Division of Mines and Geology at the March 29th joint meeting with City Council/Planning Commission for review/consideration. Additionally, at that same meeting, Engineering Geologist, Julie Bawcom suggested that the City require a third party review of geotechnical studies for project applications submitted to ensure the reports are adequately prepared, as staff does not have the actual expertise to review a comprehensive geotechnical study. Staff recommends review of Attachment 2 of the staff report, "Alternative Language for Engineering Geologic Reports" where information concerning slope stability analysis was included. The alternative language prepared by staff was adapted from the material Mr. Rau submitted. 6. The Proposed Upper and Lower Hillside Areas - How should the dividing line be created? Staff suggests the 1,000-foot elevation could represent a demarcation line between the proposed upper and lower hillside areas, and recommends discussion to consider the 1,000-foot MSL elevation as the separation line. 7. The Helen Avenue Parcels - Should these parcels be included in the Hillside Zoning District. If so, should they be in the upper or lower areas? Should the property owners of these parcels be provided more opportunity to participate in the development of the Regulations? Staff recommends further discussion to determine if the parcels above Helen Avenue should be included in the Hillside Zoning District, and if so, whether they should be situated in the MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 2006 Page 4 lower hillside area and also recommends the interested Helen Avenue property owners have additional time to participate in the development of the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 5:05 PM Ric Piffero stated a third party geotechnical report review would not be necessary if the soils/geotechnical analysis were completed by a licensed engineer from the State of California. Residential development in the hillside is very costly so a property owner would want to protect his/her investment by having the most qualified engineer complete the required soils/geotechnical study/report without having to incur the extra expense of a third party review. Mr. Piffero agreed with distinguishing between an upper and lower division in the Western Hillside. Susan Fritz opposes second unit development in the hillside primarily for fire safety reasons. Phil Ashiku commented on a summary description of his property on Maple Avenue as follows: · There are factual errors in that the property is comprised of five parcels, not four. · Two parcels are developed with single family residences. One residence fronts Maple Avenue and the second is served by 350 feet of paved driveway. · The Ashiku residence is not the highest residence on the Maple Avenue subdivision, as there are several residences above its elevation. · The remaining land above the Ashiku residence is City-owned. · The Ashiku properties are not visible from any location in town other than the County Administration Complex on Low Gap Road. Phil Ashiku requests that his parcels be removed from the Residential Hillside Zoning District on the following basis: · Of the five existing parcels, two are already developed and three remain vacant and should be considered as a natural extension of the Maple Avenue subdivision. · The five parcels overlay the same geology as the Maple Avenue subdivision that has been determined to be suitable for development. · Fire protection water is directly across Maple Avenue. · Five parcels have near zero visual impacts to City residences. · The site is improved, clear, and in an unnatural state. · Utilities are presently on site. Phil Ashiku further commented on the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations as follows: · Some properties are clearly appropriate for the development of second units while others cannot accommodate such development. Therefore, all properties should "not be painted with the same brush." · He agrees with the 1,000-foot elevation demarcation. Maple Avenue has a 794-foot elevation. His residence has an approximate elevation of 880 feet. The City water tanks in the area probably have a 1,000-foot elevation. · Some areas in the hillside are more visible than others. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 May 10, 2006 He reviewed other hillside ordinance regulations in other city/county jurisdictions where none of these areas had the same geological requirements as proposed for Ukiah. John Rogers lives in the hillside and his property is subject to the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations. He supports development of Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations because it is important to adequately protect the natural beauty and unique aesthetics of the hillside. He further supports the 1,000-foot elevation demarcation distinguishing between the upper and lower hillside. He added the lower portions of the hillside have more developments than the upper. Upper level developments would be more visible than lower level developments. While he does not particularly favor the concept of second units, they may be acceptable provided size limitations are placed. He desires additional information concerning the Helen Avenue parcels. Geotechnical studies are vital to the community and favored critical review of any geotechnical report even if this requires a third party review. Linda Sanders stated degradation will occur on the hillside with developments, and supports the concept of providing for a mitigation fund to assist in this regard. She emphasized the importance of implementing measures to protect some of the pristine elements in the Western Hillside. She referred to a letter she wrote to the City Council and Planning Commission addressing issues in the hillside and requesting that size limitations be placed on second units. Douglas Crane stated his family owns property in the Western Hills, and the two parcels consisting of approximately 13 acres is addressed in the staff report. It is likely that the original Hillside Zoning Regulations were likely formulated out of dissatisfaction from some community members regarding the potential developments of one or two property owners in the hillside and the development standards were extended south to include other parcels. He commented on the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations insufficiencies as follows: · A property owned is restricted from constructing a fence to the property line. Fencing can be constructed a distance from the property line to protect "ornamentals" which is a discrepancy because ornamentals are not allowed. · The excavation volume and/or volume of a utility trench would be included as part of the allowed yardage for grading. · The definition of slope is onerous since a gradient above 10 percent is considered "hillside" topography where the methodology is to average the percentage of the slope to determine whether a particular site is feasible for development rather than looking at the actual building site. There are many areas in the hillside having Iow visibility from the valley or even view of the valley that are appropriate building sites. In other words, the .language addresses the averaging of a parcel according to the slope standards established without consideration given to the specific land formation of a building site. Doug Crane recommended further review of the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations with regard to fire resistant construction and residential fire sprinklers as mitigation measures, language modification referencing "most stable" is replaced with "by suitably stable" and language referencing cluster development be replaced with "may" rather than "shall." The Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations restrict property owners from effective use of their land. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 May 10, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 5:27:21 PM Commissioner Whetzel inquired whether information is available concerning the number of buildable parcels and/or acceptable building pads above the 1,000-foot elevation. Planning Director Stump stated such information is not available. The information could probably be garnished from the :2001 Western Hills Constraints Analysis because the study addresses the number of homes that could reasonably be constructed in the entire hillside area. Commissioner Whetzel commented with the building constraints and engineering/ geotechnical reports required that it may not be feasible for a property owner to build in the hillside. Therefore, the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations are essentially self-regulating. It may be that of the 66 possible homes identified in the Western Hills Constraints Analysis that only five homes could be developed at buildout. There are not many homes that could be developed above the 1,000-foot elevation. Commissioner Pruden commented that virtually every person residing in the community has an opinion about the Western Hills. Aside from the fire, landslides, and earthquake issues, the primary concern is about how developments look and how they function. People residing on the valley floor do not desire to view homes developed in the hillside and that discretionary approval of such developments be completed thoughtfully, carefully, and within public safety boundaries. The Hull/Piffero subdivision developments that have occurred are visible from town. The property owners in the Hull/Piffero subdivision have done a commendable job with regard to environmental work. It has been very costly for the homeowners in the Hull/Piffero subdivision to develop their parcels. Commissioner Pruden commented on the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations and Western Hills developments as follows: · Compromises are becoming apparent such as possible concession at the 1,000-foot elevation level concerning upper and lower division of the hillside. · She recommended using the geotechnical standards in the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations referred to above as "bare bones" as guidelines for developments in the lower portions of the hillside and use more stringent geotechnical standards for the upper hillside as a compromise. · She addressed Mr. Crane's comments regarding existing building pads and acknowledged while there are some flat building pads, accessibility is a problem. Accordingly, the geotechnical standards are likely more critical for access as opposed to actual building pad, provided the pad is flat and developable. · The second unit approved for Mr. Hull would not be utilized as a rental and it is appropriate in size and location. The unit is larger than such units found in the City because the lot is larger. The second unit approved for the Ceja project is unusual in that two very large homes were approved for development on over 12 acres where one of those homes will a primary dwelling and one a secondary dwelling. The parcel cannot be split so the question becomes whether it is inappropriate to have two large homes on 12 acres. The answer is "not really." The projects should be reviewed on an individual basis as to the reality for what they represent. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 May 10, 2006 Vice Mayor Baldwin commented a lot of the buildable parcels will likely be located in the vicinity of Gibson Creek canyon, and inquired as to the potential impacts, including traffic should a significant number of developments be targeted at this West Standley location. Commissioner Whetzel inquired as to the number of parcels located up Gibson Creek and questioned whether it is a known fact that such developments will occur. Vice Mayor Baldwin replied that it is not a known fact. He noted that the Gibson Creek/West Standley Street locale is a historically known walking area. Commissioner Whetzel commented much of this area is privately owned where walking is likely prohibited and some of these areas cannot be developed due to topography constraints. Vice Mayor Baldwin stated the community should be aware that the Western Hills Constraints Analysis indicated that 66 units could potentially be built in the hillside and that the number of dwellings can double with an approved Use Permit for a secondary unit. The community needs to know the process for finding out what can or cannot occur in the hillside. Commissioner Whetzel stated the intent of the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations is to adopt an ordinance for the entire hillside. It appears the focus is on an area where the number of units at buildout and the corresponding locations are not known. Also, it is not known whether homes can be built above the proposed 1,000-foot elevation demarcation line. Director Stump stated the intent is for the proposed lower hillside areas to begin in the hills above Highland Avenue and extend to the south to the hills above Helen Avenue where the areas at the 1,000-foot elevation or higher would be in the upper hillside. Commissioner Whetzel agreed that while the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations are necessary, there are provisions/standards in place that could be applied to projects. For example, the Ceja project was shaped into a doable project by using the existing Hillside Zoning Regulations that were already in place, as well as portions of the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations. The Ceja project is above the 1,000-foot level. He suggested modifying the existing Hillside Zoning Regulations to comply with what was done to shape the Ceja project. The process of modifying the document so that standards can be effectively applied to hillside projects has been very lengthy. Councilmember McCowen commented the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations contain information that has been the subject of discussion for at least four public hearings at the Planning Commission level, as well as the City Council. He acknowledged that the process has been lengthy and stated, in his opinion, the process is proceeding in a reasonable fashion. The process slowed down some because there are several new Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers that had to become familiar with the proposed Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations, including the Western Hills Constraints Analysis study. Questions/concerns were raised concerning the Western Hills Constraints Analysis study relative to potential maximum buildout, feasibility of second units in conjunction with the areas projected at buildout addressed in the study, division of upper and lower hillside, what should the geotechnical requirements be, should there be any limits on accessory structures and other issues that must be appropriately reviewed before the Draft Hillside Zoning MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 May 10,2006 Regulations can be adopted as an ordinance. The Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations represent a reasonable framework from which to work. Councilmember McCowen stated the alternative language suggested for engineering geologic reports may be worthwhile to consider particularly if property owners would not have to be unduly burdened with unnecessary reports as compared to the engineering geologic report requirements in the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations that appear to be onerous. He supported proceeding with the alternative geotechnical requirements that include a third party review. Commissioner Whetzel commented it is likely there will always be varying opinions concerning geotechnical reports. Councilmember McCowen agreed with the above statement, and stated if alternative geotechnical requirements could potentially spare a property owner from having to spend a lot of money on studies that an engineering geotechnical professional says are unnecessary, it may be worthwhile to have the option of spending a little money for a third party review/opinion in this regard. Councilmember Rodin inquired regarding the practice for City Council remanding issues back to the Planning Commission for further review. Director Stump stated the City Council does not have to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation on a project, issue, and/or document. Moreover, if the City Council finds an issue that the Planning Commission has never discussed, it may want to remand the issue back to the Commission for review. The seven topics Council remanded to the Planning Commission were addressed by the Commission and they are prepared for further discussion of these topics if this is Council's desire. Councilmember Rodin recommended defining the goals concerning each of the seven topics the City Council remanded back to the Planning Commission and determine how to most effectively/efficiently attain these goals. She further recommended Council/Commission comment on the seven issues to decide how best to proceed. 1. Second Residential Units Councilmember Rodin commented that second units should be reviewed on a case-by- case basis to determine whether or not there should be any second unit allowed for a development in the hillside. A maximum size should be established. Commissioner Pruden commented that all second units in the hillside must have a Use Permit. She does not agree with the size limit because there have been enough exceptions to demonstrate that 750 square feet is an "artificial cap" for large acreage. Homelessness will not be eliminated with second unit developments in the hillside. Planning Commission Chair Mulheren supports allowing for second units on hillside properties and does not support requiring a 750 square foot maximum size limit. Each second unit project should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He agrees that each second unit requires discretionary review via a Use Permit. Vice Mayor Baldwin stated it is important to note that the City spent between $20,000 and $30,000 on the Western Hills Constraints Analysis, which very clearly states that second unit MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 2006 Page ~) developments should be avoided if at all possible in the hillside because the more population, the more fire danger is intensified. Also, the City Planning Department originally recommended that second unit developments be avoided for the same reason. He disagrees with Commissioner Pruden that there are a sufficient number of exceptions to demonstrate that second unit development is "no big deal" since construction of these units has not been completed so it is not known what impact these units will have on the aesthetics of the hillside and/or the potential traffic impacts on West Standley Street. He supports not allowing for second unit developments in the hillside. The State allows local jurisdictions based on health, safety, and general welfare reasons to set-a-side certain sections of the City where second unit developments are not acceptable. However, if a compromise is necessary, it would make sense to allow one small accessory structure/second unit less than 1,000 square feet rather than allowing for an unlimited number of accessory structures as currently drafted. Councilmember McCowen agrees that second unit dwellings should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with a Use Permit where the matter of the square footage would be subject to the Use Permit. Commissioner Anderson inquired whether the matter of accessory units and second units are two separate matters. Councilmember McCowen stated "they can be." Commissioner Anderson stated the general intent for the State Legislature passing new laws in 2002 encouraging second units and limiting local jurisdictions' ability to regulate them is to allow for more infill developments and discourage urban spread/sprawl. Urban sprawl includes hills not just farm land. He does not support development above the 1,000- foot elevation level. Commissioner Whetzel supports the review of second unit developments on a case-by- case basis. Commissioner Jennings does not support restricting a property owner from the development of a second unit. He does agree that a Use Permit should be required for development of a second unit. He supports review of second unit developments on a case- by-case basis and cited the Ceja project as an example of allowing for two very large homes on 12 acres, He inquired whether second unit developments occurring in the upper level would differ from the lower level. It would likely be more expensive to develop a second unit in the upper level than the lower level. There are areas in the hillside such as the Helen Avenue hillside areas that can not be seen from any vantage point in town so it seems reasonable to allow for larger homes "tucked" into the hillside. He supports the concept of allowing for second units with approval of a Use Permit. He also supports the concept of providing for size restrictions for second units. 2. Day care homes and the State preemption Councilmember McCowen stated a Major Use Permit should be necessary for day care homes or residential care homes to the extent that the City can regulate such facilities. Commissioner Anderson supports allowing small care homes with six or fewer persons whether they operate as a 24-hour care facility or regular day care without securing a Use Permit. Large day care facilities, as defined above, would require Use Permit approval. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page l0 May 10,2006 Commissioner Whetzel concurred with Commissioner Anderson in this regard. Commissioner Jennings stated the number of day trips would likely be fewer for residential day care facilities with six or less persons in a permanent location than those operating Small Family Day Care Homes where 'drop offs and pick ups" can occur throughout the day, and this could be problematic. He supported the concept of requiring a Use Permit. Councilmember McCowen supports the concept of restricting both day care and residential care facilities in the hillside because of the safety issue. Councilmember Rodin supports the concept of requiring a Major Use Permit for Large Family Day Care Homes and for all residential care homes regardless of whether the facility cares for six or fewer persons or six to twelve persons in the hillside. Commissioner Pruden expressed concern about the safety factor, and stated a Use Permit finding must be made that residential care homes would not harm the health, safety, and welfare of the community. She is not supportive of allowing day care even if such facilities are state regulatory in the upper portion of the hillside. She further expressed concern about evacuation of persons in these facilities in conjunction with constrained driveways and corresponding emergency response time where the Use Permits should be conditioned accordingly. Vice Mayor Baldwin agreed with Commissioner Jennings in that the more care facilities there are, the more traffic. Considering the value of the land, care home facilities would not likely be a concern at this time. Commissioner Jennings advised State CDF and Fire Protection may require compliance with safety regulations relative to egress/ingress from driveways in hillside locations so the issue concerning the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations may be moot. 3. Architecture/design elements Commissioner Jennings commented the design element that require developments to be earth-tone is too vague and recommended modification of the language to reflect that the color scheme blend well with the site. Commissioner Whetzel supported the concept that architecture and design elements be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as there are a wide range of earth-tone colors. Commissioner Anderson does not have sufficient knowledge to state what visually works or does not work in terms of colors in the hillside. He favors the concept of requiring that residential color schemes be less conspicuous for hillside homes. Councilmember McCowen agreed that the color scheme of requiring earth-tone color be reviewed on a case-by-case basis so that homes appear less conspicuous. Vice Mayor Baldwin had no comment. Planning Commission Chair Mulheren commented there are other architecture/design element considerations in addition to color schemes that have to be reviewed in order for a residential unit to blend well with the environment. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 May 10, 2006 Commissioner Pruden commented the Hull/Piffero subdivision developments have set the standards for residential development. The homes are single-story and any potential massing appropriately mitigated to blend well with the environment. The key component from a visual perspective is to require that new developments blend effectively with the environment without being viewed as a predominate feature and/or focal point. "All buildings must be secondary to the beauty of the hillside." Councilmember Rodin reiterated that the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations state that developments must "blend" with the environment. There are homes in the hillside that can be seen and do not blend in with the environment so the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations may need to more specific when it comes to requiring that buildings in the hillside blend well. The dwellings do not necessarily have to be single-story provided they mix well with the surrounding terrain. Also, the cream-colored home in the HulI-Piffero subdivision does not blend well with the existing surroundings. 4. The number of allowed accessory buildinqs City Council Baldwin stated a public member at the March 29, 2006, Western Hills workshop indicated that second units and accessory buildings are a similar topic because accessory buildings can be converted to defacto second units. Councilmember Rodin did not have a specific recommendation, as she is generally opposed to more buildings/structures in the hillside. She inquired regarding the definition of accessory buildings. She favored the concept of having a "balance" with regard to accessory buildings, since property owners have the right to have sheds or other similar accessory buildings. The matter of accessory buildings should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Pruden commented that accessory buildings should serve a function to the property. She recommended setting standards for a building envelope that includes accessory buildings and favors allowing for appropriate "clustering" of buildings/accessory units that complements the site. People can have swimming pools and a nexus such as an outdoor eating area/patio provided they comply with the development standards for a particular building envelope. She further recommended the building envelope compared to the number of acres be proportional by percentage along with an acceptable rationale and a plan for proper clustering of buildings to ensure property compatibility. Planning Commission Chair Mulheren agreed with Commissioner Pruden that second units and number of accessible buildings allowed should be reviewed according to the building envelope in conjunction with the number of acres on a case-by-case basis. Vice Mayor Baldwin recommended restricting the number of accessory buildings to one and/or a second unit on each parcel. As pointed out by Victoria Golden at the March 2006, hillside workshop, the conversion of guest houses, garages, and barns to second units is a major problem in Sonoma County. He acknowledged the State has mandated/required local governments to allow second units as a means of providing for affordable housing units where the original concept was granny units. Second units in the hillside do not correspond with the State mandate because these units are not constructed for affordable housing reasons. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 May 10, 2006 Councilmember McCowen stated the concern raised is that people will construct an unlimited number of accessory units, and in his opinion, this is not likely to occur because such units are limited partly by site constraints and/or cost factors. People building homes in the hillside would not want to clutter up their properties with sheds and miscellaneous structures where the appearance would be aesthetically displeasing. He addressed the matter of people building guest rooms and later converting them to second units, and recommended possibly limiting a property owner to one accessory structure up to a maximum of 500 square feet by right and beyond this a Minor Use Permit would be required. Commissioner Anderson agreed generally with Councilmember McCowen concerning accessory units. However, it may not be realistic to guess whether a person may or may not desire to clutter a parcel with a second unit and numerous accessory buildings so some restrictions would likely be necessary. Commissioner Wetzel agreed with Commissioners Mulheren and Pruden that accessory buildings should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Accessory units would probably be self-restricting in that people would not want to "clutter-up" their property with numerous accessory buildings. Commissioner Jennings stated while people would probably not want to clutter up their properties, it should be regulated. Unrestricted application of secondary units and accessory units would not be representative of good planning. He agreed with Councilmember McCowen that one accessory building would be acceptable by right and a Use Permit would be required for any additional units. 5. Required Soils/geotechnical information Councilmember Rodin agrees that a third party review would be beneficial and accepts the alternative language for engineering geologic reports as proposed. Commissioner Pruden stated no one would want an inflexible geotechnical standard. However, no such document would be too comprehensive for the Western Hills. The new standards proposed would be appropriate for the lower portions of the hillside. She favors allowing for third party review. Planning Commission Chair Mulheren has no opinion on this topic. Vice Mayor Baldwin agrees with Councilmember Rodin and Commissioner Pruden relevant to this topic. Councilmember McCowen supports the proposed alternative language for engineering geologic reports and to allow for third party review. Commissioner Anderson concurred with Councilmember McCowen. Commissioner Whetzel stated the third party review would be cost prohibitive for some people, since there are competent and incompetent persons in all professions and who is to say that the third party could be the "incompetent" professional. He recommended that geotechnical report review be on a parcel-by-parcel basis as the projects come forward for discretionary review by the Planning Commission or City Council. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 May 10, 2006 Commissioner Jennings inquired as to who is burdened with the cost of third party review. It was noted the applicant must bear the cost. Commissioner Jennings does not favor a third party review. 6. Proposed upper and lower hillside areas Commissioner Jennings had no comment. Commissioner Whetzel favors the concept of providing for a demarcation of the hillside. He requested more information be made available concerning potential demarcation lines. Commissioner Anderson favors the 1,000-foot elevation as the demarcation line between the upper and lower hillside because the element of visibility is the primary factor as one gets higher into the hills. Commissioner McCowen stated the 1,000-foot elevation demarcation line tends to be arbitrary as there are higher parcels that are less visible and lower parcels that are more visible. He is not supportive of the 1,000-foot elevation concept as the demarcation line without understanding of other options. Vice Mayor Baldwin stated the 1,000-foot elevation demarcation line is a possibility. He referred to page 9 of the staff report that shows the Kilkenny residence at the 1,000-foot elevation and questioned this information. It is important that the community understand the locations of areas with higher density locations in correlation with the 1,000-foot elevation line. Planning Commission Chair Mulheren had no comment. Commissioner Pruden commented there seems to be some community consensus that the 1,000-foot elevation line may be a reasonable mark. She recommended taking the proposed 1,000-foot elevation line and incorporating a 10 percent buffer to allow for topography variations, which would allow flexibility for the elevation line to be moved to 1,100 feet or so. She indicated that Robert Werra recommends an elevation demarcation line at 1,100 feet. She favors having a division between upper and lower portions of the hillside. Councilmember Rodin thanked staff for taking the photographs that are included in the staff report for informational purposes, as this was very helpful. She favors the concept of allowing for a 1,000-foot elevation demarcation line, as well as Commissioner Pruden's recommendation to allow for a 10 percent buffer either way to provide for topography variations. 7. Helen Avenue Parcels Councilmember Rodin had no comment. Commissioner Pruden disagrees that the Helen Avenue property owners have not had sufficient time to comment on this issue. This topic was brought up at least two years ago and there has been numerous public testimony concerning this subject so time is not the issue. It may that more understanding is needed. Helen Avenue is located at the bottom of a very steep terrain. She supports that the parcels in the hills behind Helen Avenue be MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14 May 10, 2006 included as part of the Hillside Zoning District where compliance with the development standards/slope and other such criteria is required once the revised Hillside Zoning Regulations are adopted as an ordinance. Planning Commissioner Chair Mulheren originally questioned whether the Helen Avenue parcels should be included as part of the Residential Hillside Zoning District. He is unsure how they should be treated as to whether they should be included in the Residential Hillside Zoning District or if they are really visible. It may not be an issue if a particular height level is established separating the upper from the lower levels of the hillside. Vice Mayor Baldwin stated the issue of whether or not to include the Helen Avenue parcels in the Hillside Zoning District should not delay adoption of the revised, more improved and progressive Hillside Zoning Regulations Ordinance. He recommended if the issue causes delay in adoption of an ordinance that the parcels be exempt for the time being where the initial Hillside Zoning Regulations Ordinance would apply. Director Stump clarified that currently the Helen Avenue parcels are not located within the Residential Hillside Zoning District and, therefore, are not subject to the initial Hillside Zoning Regulations. It was noted by staff that the Helen Avenue residents were notified of tonight's meeting. Councilmember McCowen stated the process of adopting the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations is moving forward. There will be other public hearings on this matter. This will provide the opportunity for more people to address issues/concerns and provide input. Visibility is not the only criteria concerning the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations and stated other criteria are meant to be addressed by the document. Therefore, it makes sense that the Helen Avenue parcels be included in the Residential Hillside Zoning District where they would be subject to the revised Hillside Zoning Regulations when these regulations are adopted as an ordinance. Commissioner Anderson supports that the Helen Avenue parcels be included as part of the Residential Hillside Zoning District. Commissioner Whetzel stated the parcels in the hills behind Helen Avenue are located in the lower levels of the hillside. Commissioner Jennings agreed that these parcels are located in the lower portions of the hillside. There will likely be additional public input in this regard when the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations are again before the Planning Commission for review. He inquired how to treat a parcel that is split between the upper and lower hillside levels, and noted it is likely that the distinguishing factor would be where the majority of the property lies. Director Stump stated the distinguishing factor may be the location of the proposed development in terms of elevation. The Councilmembers and Commissions agreed it was beneficial for the two bodies to dialogue and that the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations are moving closer toward becoming an official document. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 15 May 10, 2006 Commissioner Anderson recommended a different seating arrangement for future meetings so that Councilmembers and Commissioners can face one another. Councilmember McCowen commented the "required site area" is an issue that has not been addressed concerning the upper and lower hillside areas where the average cross slope is the determining factor. There may be other ways to factor in the required site area for the two hillside divisions other than the averaging of the cross slope, which, in his opinion, is "an artificial formula." Essentially, the land does not conform to such a formula. Commissioner Pruden stated the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations is a complex document and ordinance amendments would likely occur as exceptions or new issues rise for review and consideration. Councilmember Rodin addressed the pedestrian facilities portion of the Draft Hillside Zoning Regulations, and noted section 3 of the document states that "public pedestrian right-of-ways or walkways may be required along private streets in new subdivisions provided the City Council adopts a public trails plan that includes the subject property and a feasible walkway route and that the appropriate legal findings can be made to support the requirement." The City does not currently have a public trails plan in place and recommended that such a plan be developed with the goal of working toward establishing public right-of-ways through the hills wherever these may be. Director Stump noted it appears there is consensus that the revision of the Hillside Zoning Regulations will move forward and that the document will go back to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration in light of the recent hillside discussions. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL/UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 May 10,2006 ITEM NO.: 7a DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2006 Payments made during the month of May 2006, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 69248-69333, 69404-69500, 69503-69629, 69699-69798 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: 67419-67421 Payroll check numbers: 69334-69402, 69630-69698 Payroll Manual check numbers: 69247, 69501, 69502 Void check numbers: 69403 This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of May 2006. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Mike McCann, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements ( APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City KRS:WORD/AGENDAMAY06 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2006 Demand Payments approved: Check No.: System generated: 69248-69333, 69404-69500, 69503-69629, 69699-69798. Manual: 67419-67421 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $293,827.58 600 Airport 131 Equipment Reserve Fund 611 Sewer Construction Fund 140 Park Development $1,388.31 612 City/District Sewer 141 Museum Grants $3,747.69 615 City/District Sewer Replace 143 N.E.H.I. Museum Grant 620 Special Sewer Fund (Cap Imp) 150 Civic Center Fund 640 San Dist Revolving Fund 200 Asset Seizure Fund $3,123.63 641 Sanitation District Special 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 652 REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 660 Sanitary Disposal Site Fund 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 661 Landfill Corrective Fund 205 Sup Law Enforce. Srv. Fund (SLESF) $1,919.02 664 Disposal Closure Reserve 206 Community Oriented Policing 670 U.S.W. Bill & Collect 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant 678 Public Safety Dispatch 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $516.84 679 MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 695 Golf 250 Special Revenue Fund 696 Warehouse/Stores 260 Downtown Business Improvement 697 Billing Enterprise Fund 290 Bridge Fund 698 Fixed Asset Fund 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 699 Special Projects Reserve 310 Special Aviation Fund 800 Electric 315 Airport Capital Improvement $127,515.47 805 Street Lighting Fund 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 806 Public Benefits Charges 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant 820 Water 333 Comm. Development Block Grant $2,540.00 840 Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 900 Special Deposit Trust 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 910 Worker's Comp. Fund 340 SB325 Reimbursement Fund $1,908.00 920 Liability Fund 341 S.T.P. 940 Payroll Posting Fund 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 950 General Service (Accts Recv) 345 Off-System Roads Fund 960 Community Redev. Agency 410 Conference Center Fund $6,556.58 962 Redevelopment Housing Fund 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 965 Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund 575 Garage $2,510.13 966 Redevelopment Debt Svc. 975 Russian River Watershed Assoc 976 Mixing Zone Policy JPA PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 69247, 69334-69402 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 27873-28027 PAYROLL PERIOD 4/23/06-5/6/06 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 69501,69502, 69630-69698 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 28028-28174 PAYROLL PERIOD 517106-5120106 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: 69403 TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $6,730.49 $115,420.51 $81,209.51 __ _ $12,256.10 $25,996.86 $734.29 $17,673.92 $12,940.10 $2,151.22 $2,726.50 $28,962.83 $5,539.81 $615,018.74 $9,O86.50 $17,181.75 $37,377.12 $245,653.68 $6,555.33 $532.10 $363,778.14 $2,32O.84 $26,043.11 $12,965.98 $165,516.88 $6,389.05 $2,266,314.61 $47,212.98 $133,126.73 $357,888.40 $2,804,542.72 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance MEMORANDUM Date: To; From: RE: May 24, 2006 City Council Members Mike McCann, Finance Direc~ Disbursement Description - Abandoned Property-State The attached Agenda Item (Schedule of Bills) includes disbursements with a description "Abandoned Prop-State". These entries are to cancel (void) outstanding checks that are "stale dated". Stale dated checks are all checks that have not been presented for payment by the bank within 90 days from date of issue. We attempt to contact the recipients of ~tale dated checks. Those we were able to reach were issued replacement checks. Those recipients we were unable to reach, were not issued replacement checks. California Government Code Sections 50050-55056 provide direction on the handling of unclaimed money. Basically, unclaimed money is held for three (3) years. At the end of this period, an advertisement is placed in the newspaper informing the public what unclaimed property is being held. If no claim is received for the money after this notice, the money reverts back to the City. A trust account was established in the general ledger to record the amounts designed as unclaimed property. The Accounts Payable Specialist will maintain a control sheet of the detail which equals the balance in the general ledger account. rJ . o > Oo 00 0 00 O0 00 00 00 00 CO ~0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 00 00 · 00 · . 00 00 · 00 00 © oo~ ~O~o 0 ~ O~ ~ 0 0 0 · 0 ~0 · 0 , 0 ~ 0 0 ~ · . ,~ 0 0 (~ 0 ~ · 0 0 0 0 0 ~R o o o o o o o0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 ~o~oo oo ~ ~oo ~oo O0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 0 0 00~ 000 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 000000000000000000000 ~~0~00~00~~0~ O~ O0 O0 ~0 0 0 000000000000000000000 O~ d ~0 ~0 0 0 ',o H 0 ~0 <DO ~000000000000000000000 0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 o~°~°~~°~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~ oo ~ oo o~ o oo o oo ~ oo ~ 000000000~0~~0000000~0~0000000000000000000~0 0000000~0~~0~00~0~0~0~000000000~00000~0 O~ 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ~r~ I-I r,j · 0 0 oo o ~oo 0 · DD ~ mmmo H~~ ~~HO 0~00~ · · , , · · 0 0 0 · 0 · ~ r.-.I · 1:2> © · 0 0 ~~0 ~~° 00 00 0 CO cO ~ 0 Oo ~:o n~ O~ o ~o ~ H ~ ~H~ o~ ~o m~ o o ~J 0000 0000 0 0 o u ~o oq ~ t~ , o ~ HHO cq 00 · o Z o~ o o ~J o~ i 0 ,-..] o ooo o i r,j , o o o o o {20 ~ o o o o o o o o o 0000 o o o o o o oooooooooo ~o~ o o ooo o oo 0 0 o 04 ~ o · o o , r,,,rj O H¢40 HI--lO 00o00 ooo · 0 0 o oo~oo8o 0 O0 O0 0 0 00000000 o oo~oo~o O~OO OO O o~o~~~ O O~ ~ ~ H~HHHHHHHHO ~ O 00 00 (~ · , ~ c~ O~ r,j ~ H O H 0 O u'} ~O 0 H i I-.-I LD r,.) · 0 > 0 o o o o o o 0000 ooooooooo oooooooo 0 0 0 (J o o , o ¢~ · · o o ~ . · o o o o (,~ H O::z: ~0 o o o o o o · o o · o 12o {2o [13 u3 · o~ o oo oo ooooooooo ~oo~§oo 00000000 ~oo~oo 00~~0 0~~0~ · · · , · · · · 00000000 ~ ~>~ OH H ~-I ~-~ ~0~ HOM ~00 0 ~ H o~ rj . 0 > 0 O0 0000000 000000 000000 0 00 0 u~ ~ 0 0 0 0 · ~ 0 0~00 ~00~00 °~°° o ~m~ H o~ ~ H O~ U rJ · ~D 0 > 00 O00 0000 O0 O0 O0 0000000000 0 0 00 O0 OD., r. JO ~i~i ~H~H 0~0~ ~ ~0 oooso~soo~ 000 O0 O0 0000000000 ~O~O~ OO~OOO~O OO~O~~O ~o~o~oo SS~o~OOoooo 000000000 o~oo~o~ ~o o~SS~Soo ~~0000~ · ...... 0 · ~Soo ooSS o H HH ~H Oo ,<O 0r~ 0 [.;...] H I-r-] H rJ 0 ¢1~ H H HHHH HHH ~0000000000 n.., ,< ~ 00000000 ~00000000 ~0~ ~~ ~ 000000000 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 ,-10 0 00000000 00000000 HHHHHHHH O~ O~ 0 u,q ~ 0 (J . 0 > o © So o o o o o o o o o c> c~ o o o o o o 0 0 o ¢~ o ~ o o o o o o · o o · o o · O0 i i 0 r~ o 0 Or~ 0 i i i ~0 0 O~ ~0 0 i o~ 0000 0000 0000 00000000000000 00000000000000 0 0 O0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 r..) o o o o 0000 °~° OO~ Soos~oosooosoo O0 O0 000 O0 00000000000000 ~OOOOOOOOOOOOO ~°°~S~° ~ ~~~O~o 0 0 i o oo ooooo OOO~ OOOOO OOOOO O O O r.80 HHHHHHHHHHHH ~000000000000 O0 O0 HO0000 0 H ~ 0 LEI o oo ~oo oo~°° oo~ 0 0 o oooo oooo~oo~oo 0000000000000000 ~oo~oo~oo~ooo~ ~oo~o~oo~~ ~~o°~ ~oo o 0 ~ O0 0 ~t~ H r,j · o > o o ~ co co o o o o o o o'~ o'~ o o oooo o o o o o o o4 ~oo c0 c0 c0 o~§°° o ~ o ooooooo O0 O0 o o . o [~ · o4 ~ . o u~ ,-4 o · . o o o o ~oo o oo oooo 0~ 0~ o o ,-4 ~ o4 oo ~0 O0 ~~00~ oo~oo~ O0 O0 HOOHOOO o ~/) o ~q ~ i 0 0 oo oooo oooo o o o o o o o o o 0 0 O0 o o o o oo °°~ o~o~ ooo oooo °°~ ~ ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 0 · o 0 00 00 · C~ c~ oo~ o oo o o o o o o · o o c~ ~ c~ c~ · o 00 ~ o c~ c~ · o og ,< 0'~ 0 ~ o o 0~ H ~ ~0 O~ o~ o . 0 0 00 0 O0 ~o~ O0 0 ~o 0000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 ~o~ ~ o~ o 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 · ~ o~ o oo · ~o 0000000000000 0 0 · °g · ~0~ 0 0 0 o~ 0 o~ 6 i (J . 0 > 0 0 0 O0 ~-~ ~ o o o o o~ o~ o o o~ ~ c~ c~ o o o o o o oooooo oooooo 0 0 oo~ oo oooo oo ~~0 O0 oo~ 0 000000 °~o~o~ o t/~o H H H i i i i i H H ~0 r..4 o ~00 0~ 0~ ~§~°~§oo ~000000 000000 00 000 000 0 000 o;; ~ ~;;~oo o oooo o o oo o oo oo 0 0 oo o oooooo ~oo~oo oo~ m ~ oo o o o o · , 0 c~ c> · , 0 O0 ~0 00000000 0 O0 O0 o~oo~o~ 0 O0 O~ O0 ~:H O0 0 ~8°888©o o H 0 r~ . o > o o o oo oo oo o~ 0000000000000000 oo~ 0000 0000000000000000 O0 ~0 O~ ~0 00000000~00~0000 ~o~oo~o~$o~o o~~o O0 O0 0 00000000 O0 O0 0 0~~00 oo~oo~o O0 ~0 0 0 ~ ~ ~o oo 0000 °°~ 0~0~ ~0~ ~0~ O0 oo~ O~ ~:o 0 r~ H o o o 0 0 o~ · , H~O O~ O~ ~ HO~ o o rJ · o > o r.j . o > {2> C> o o o o o ~ c~ 0000 0000 0000 00 00 00 00 {2> ~ 00000000 00000000 00000000 C~ C~ 00 00 00 00 CO 000 0 O0 L~l~ ~ · · · 0 ~o~ o oo oooo ~°° ° ~ o o o o o o o o · o o · 0 ~q o ~ o o oo oo o~oo~o ~ ~0 ~0 · , 120 co o o 00 o~ o~ o cq 000 ~ {2> 0~ 0 o~ mom~ o Ln o o o o o~ o o ooo ~o 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 0 o~ ~,° o o o co o~ ;~oo o oo ooo~ ~oo~ ~°° H 0 o o o o o o · o o ~:) ~) · i.N LA 0 0 · · 0 ~ 0 ~U O~ R 0 ~ ~./~ H~ d 0 ~0 r..) · > o ~00 o§ooo~oo~oo 0 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 I~tlIIllll~ 00~0000000 0000~~~ 00000000000 00000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 ~ O0 0 ~~000000 0000000000 0 O~ 0 0 0 ~ o ~oo~oo ~ ~o o~ o~o~oooooo~ ~o~o~~o ~oo~oo~oo~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000000000 O0 O0 0000~~ ~oo~oo~oo O0 O0 O0 0 o ~ o o ~o~ 0000 0000 0000 00 00 00 00 00 H o o ooo ooooooooo~ oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oo o oo o oo · 00 °~ ~ °° o · t"q cq o H ~o oo oo · o o o 0000000000 ~0~0~0000~ 0~000~~ ~~000~ ~00~000 ~~~ooo oo~oo~oo~ O0 ~00 O0 O~ ~ H mc> © HO 0 HHHHHHHHHH 0000000000 ~0000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000 ~oo~oo~~oo~oo~oo~oo ~~~~~~~~oo oo oo oo oo oo 0 0 0000 0000 o 0 0 0 · 0 00 · 0 00 0 ~ 0 o~ ooooooooooooooooooooooo ~0ooooo00ooooo0oo0oooooo oo H rJ · ~0 > o o ~q ~q ooooo oo oo oo oooo oooooooo oooo o~oo~oo ~~0~00~~~000 oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~o o o o o o o · 0 o o · ~o o · o ~3 o o~ 00 ~ o o o o · o · · 0 0 ooo~ ~ ~0 o ooooo 0 0~00 o~ 0 ~ mO~ o o 120 ~0 H i 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 o 0 i ~o~ oo ooo , 0 o , o o o c~ c~ · 0 §° o o o o o o · o o 0~ c~ · 00 00 o o · °~ 0 0 rj rj ~-] H i rJO 0~ ~0 0~ i 0000 0 ~ 00 00 0 C~ C~ 0 O00 ~° oo oooo oooo oooo o o o I.I'3 0'3 0 0 oo~ o o o o oo o oooo ~° oo oo oo oo °°~ ~ 0 o o o O~ o ~ o OH 0 ~E~ rJ ~j H HI-] O~ 0 0 Iml 0 [i-1 0 0 0 O~ H ~0 rJ · 0 0 ~ 000000 00 00 00 00 [13 0 ,-~ 00 00 0 O0 00000 O0 00000 ~oo ~§ ~°° ~° ~oo.~ 0~0~ HHH~HHO o~oo~o 0 O0 0 00000000 ........ o~oo~oo ........ o~o~§o~ 0 ~0 O~ H~HHHHHHO 00 00 00 · · · · · 120 ~0 H H 0 H~ ~000000 0 r~ H O O ~03 0 ~:~ H ~ 0 ' 0 0 O0 O0 000000000 000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 0000 00000000000000000000 ~~=~=~=~==~==~~oo o ooo oo o 000000000000000000000000 0 0 O0 O0 ~ oo~~o O0 O0 0 oo~oo~o ~ ~ 0 o o 120 O~ ~0 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H ~0 0 ' 0 > 0 00 O00 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00~~ oo~o o o ~ 000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000 O0 000 0000000 O0 O0 0000000 0 0 00 ~0~00~~0~00~0~0~000000~ ~~~00~~~00000~~~ ~000000~00000000~~00~~00 ~00~0~00000~0~~~~~ 0 O0 O0 O0 ~ ~ 0 000 0000000 0000000 ~o~o~ ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 O~ H~: {Dm 0 o o o o o o c> o ooo .~o ~ oc~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ c~ c~ ~ oo~oo~ O0 O0 0000~0 0~0~ 00~0~0 o o o o o o · o o · ~ o · m r.~ o~o~o co o o o~ H · 120 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ O~ ~ 0 ~ . o o oo o o o oo o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o ~o~ o o ooo o§ o oo ooooo 00000 00000 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~0 0 ~ 0 ~ O0 0 ~ ~ ~ .. ... , oo ~o o o o O0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ o o O0 ~0 ~ o o ~oo~ oo 00000 ~0~0 00~ ~°~ HHNHHHH ~ 0 ~ 0 0 O~ HHHHN ~HHHHH c~ c~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c~ o c~ 0~ o o o o o o o o o o ,-I ,--t 0 0 o o · . ~0 H H 0 0 · 0 ~ 0 · oo~ o H H H DD~q o o o · c~ o o ~ o · 0 o o o o o t~ o O~ ~,~ H H :~ ~00 ~00 ~-~ H H O H H ~ r,J . 0 > 0 0 0 ~0 ~0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 · . o~ · · 0 O0 0 0 0 · . . 0 ~/~0 o~ o 0 0 0 ~J . o > o o · o o g° o o oo oooo °°~ oo o ~ o o o o o o p- co 0 0 o ~ 0~ · 0 0 c~ c~ o o o o · · o o °~ o Oc~ ~:o O~ ~ 0 ~J · o > o o o o o o o c~ c~ c) 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 ~ 0000 0 0 00 00 00 00 ix) 12o 12o oh o~ 1:2> ~ cq 0 0 o o o · o · {2> c) · o o o o o o · o o o o ~ o c~ c~ · o o o o O~ O~ ~0 O~ 0 ~0 0 ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo o o o ooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oo o 0 0 o~oo~o 0 O0 0 o~oo~o 0 O0 ~0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 °° ~ ° oo ~ o~ ~o~oo~ oo~o~o~oo~ ~ ~o~o~o~o ~ oo ~o~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~tn0 H O~ H rJ · 0 I 0 0o0 ~o co~q° o o o oo o oo o o o o o o o 0 0 ooo o o o o , 0 , , 0 0 O~ O~ 0 OH ~g ~ o (J · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · °~ · , {2> ~ · ~ 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 ~ 0 · 0 0 · 0 1:2> {2) 0 r.a r.,8 o O~ H ~D rJ · 0 > 0 c~ c~ 00 CO O~ 0 o c~ c~ 00 030~ 00~ 000000000~1~10 0000ooo00o00 000000000000 00~~~0 000000000000 0 0 o~oo oo~ ~oo o oo ooooooo ooo ooooooo oo~ o~oo~oo~oo 0 O0 O0 O0 o 0 0 0 O~ 0 ~HO ~:0 0~ 0 0 H. H ~g 0 0 0 O~ r Jo O~ oooo 0000 00 00 00 00 C~ C~ ~o oo~oo ~ 0000000000000 O0 O0 000 0 O0 O0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 · 0 o~ o O0 000 O0 0 0000000000000 000000~000000 O~ O~ ~0 00~0~~~ oo~ ~~o 0 o~ omm~ ~ o~ H I.-.q o o o o o ooo ooooo ooooo o o o o · o o · o ~oo§§ oo 00000 000 0 0 00000 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 0 ~0 O0 ~ O0 O~ ~0~ 0000000000000~0~0~~0000 0 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 00000000000000000000 o oo oo ~o~ °~ 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 o O~ ~J~ ~:o 000000000 0000000000000000 ~r~ U · o <2> O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 0000000000 O0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 00000000000000000 ~o~o~oo~~ o o ~o o~ ~ ~ ~ O~ 0 H H~ 0 ~ 0 00000000000 m 0 ~ 0000000000~ ~ OH o~ H ~0 rj · o o o o ooo o o o ~0 ~ o o o o o o oo o o o o o 00 o o o o oo~o O0 0 o 0 OoO Oq 0 oo~ ~o · , 00 ~q . . . ~00 · . . 00 Cq 0 CO C~ I-q 000 · . . C~ 0 ~o 0 0 0000 · . . . 0 0 d o o H }.-q co o 00 o o ooo 0 0 o o o0 00 · . o o o o o o · 0 · · ~oo o o oo · . . · o ~:o O~ ~0000 0 0000 O~ ~0 0 rj · 0 o v ITEM NO. 7b DATE: June 21,2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF A BREAKER CABINET FROM COOPER POWER SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,686.57; AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN SAME AMOUNT This is a special order for replacement of a city owned breaker cabinet. The City's Electric Department was notified on December 19, 2005 that excessive rains causing a mudslide irreparably damaged the existing breaker cabinet, requiring replacement of the exact model for pad and cable fit. Cooper Power Systems is the sole supplier of the original cabinet. The breaker cabinet is $11,686.57 including tax and freight; funds are available within Account Number 800.3646.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report regarding the sole source purchase of a replacement breaker cabinet from Cooper Power Systems in the amount of $11,686.57; authorize budget amendment in same amount. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Colin Murphy, Interim Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City~anager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7c DATE: June 21 2006 SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,501.48 TO LN CURTIS & SON'S FOR THE PURCHASE OF OSHA REQUIRED FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SUMMARY: Section 1522 of the Municipal Code requires a report be filed with the City Council regarding purchases between $5,000 and $10,000. In accordance with the above mentioned section, this report is submitted to the City Council regarding the acquisition of equipment. During the FY 05/06 budget approval process, Council approved funds to purchase Firefighter Protective Clothing. The replacement and upgrade of Firefighter Protective clothing is an ongoing project for the department with funds committed to make purchases each year. This particular purchase is for 6 sets (coats and pants) of the protective wear worn by paid and volunteer firefighters during their response to vehicle accidents, vehicle fires, hazardous conditions and structure fires. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of expenditures in the amount of $4,250.74 from account 100.2101.690.006 (Fire Department Budget) and $4,250.74 from account 100.2190.690.002 (Fire Department Volunteer/Explorer Budget). ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: NA Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Kurt Latipow Fire Chief Candace Horsley, City Manager None Candace Horsley, City I~nager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7d DATE: June 21, 2006 SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE LAKE MENDOCINO HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT REFURBISHMENT EMERGENCY At its May 17th, 2006 meeting, Council voted unanimously to declare the Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Power Plant equipment refurbishment project an emergency and authorized the City Manager to take action to resolve the emergency until such time that the emergency no longer exists. To that end, the City Manager has contracted with Source California Energy Services, Inc. to perform the work necessary to refurbish the power plant equipment that was damaged and contaminated as a result of flooding that occurred earlier this year. A progress report from the Project Manager for Source California Energy Services, Inc. is detailed in an email dated June 13, 2006, see Attachment 1. Continuing progress reports will be made at every City Council meeting until such time that the contract is complete and the emergency no longer exists. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council continue to declare by a 4/5 vote that the Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Power Plant equipment refurbishment project is a continuing emergency and to support the refurbishment contract as performed by Source California Energy Services, Inc. until such time that the contract is complete and an emergency no longer exists. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Given that Council declared the Lake Mendocino Hydroelectric Power Plant equipment refurbishment project an emergency at its May 17th Council meeting, and based on that action, the City entered into contract to resolve the emergency, there is no alternative policy option. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council Murray Grande, Interim Public Utility Director; Liz Kirkley, Electrical Distribution Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney 1. Email from Source California dated June 13, 2006 Candace Horsily, C nager ITEM No. 7d June 21, 2006 ATTACHMENT 1 ..... Original Message ..... From: Paul Dirks [mailto:pbd@sourcecalifornia.com] Sent: Tuesday, .lune 13, 2006 6:52 AM To: Liz Kirkley Cc: 'Murray Grande'; Murray Grande; John Anthoni (John Anthoni); Steve Mays Subject: Hydro Status for ASR Sensitivity: Confidential Liz: Below is a short summary of work that has been accomplished to date: Source California Energy Services, has been issued a purchase order to conduct the refurbishment of the Lake Mendocino Hydro Plant. A number of initial preliminary activities have been completed. One of the first activities was the completion of a full review of available documentation. This included salvaging the documentation that was stored wet in the onsite storage container. There were a number of important site documents found that are salvageable and are currently being dried. The next activity that has been completed is securing onsite office space and telephone access. The Ukiah Rod & Gun Club has been gracious in allowing Source California to occupy its office and use the phone in the Townsend Building. Phone service has been re-established inside the power house. Reviews of the plant safety systems have been completed and work has started on making available the plant oil/water separator and drainage pump system. Initial work has also started on the emergency lighting system to determine the necessary components to make this equipment available. An NCPA clearance procedure is now in place and being utilized to properly clear the drainage and utility water pump systems for work. All of this preliminary work is in preparation for removing the generators. Two site visits have been conducted by the generator subcontractor to determine the necessary plant systems that need to be operational for this removal work. Some preliminary information has surfaced as a result of the work to refurbish the utility water pump and motor. This pump is a small subsystem supplying the power house's needs for utility water when the penstock is depressurized. The pump is only a 60 gpm pump but it is the backup system for supplying water to the turbine gland seal and bearing cooling water system. We refurbished the pump early because it is necessary to pump water back into the plant to flush the drainage pump system of all oil traces in the drainage pipeline. The preliminary information worth mentioning is that even though this small electrical motor was submerged by over 4 feet of water, the electrical motor windings looked brand new! It is possible to extrapolate this finding and believe that the generator windings will also be in very good condition. Paul (831) 588-6027 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7e DATE: June 21,2006 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR TRUCKING SERVICE TO OFF-HAUL SOIL FROM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS HAY ROAD LANDFILL TO WIPF CONSTRUCTION AT THE UNIT PRICE OF $27.93 PER TON FOR AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL OF $20,947.50 Submitted for City Council's consideration and action is staff's recommendation to award a bid for trucking service to remove approximately 750 tons of soil stockpiled at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to WIPF Construction in the amount of $27.93 per ton for an approximate total amount of $20,947.50. The soil must be removed from the WWTP to accommodate construction of the new secondary clarifiers. The soil originally came from vactor truck spoils and was stockpiled in the sludge drying bed. Routine soil analysis prior to disposal of the material indicated that it contains trace measurable amounts of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) - Oil and Grease. This means that it cannot be mixed with other soil at the WWTP or stockpiled indefinitely on site. The TPH - Oil and Grease concentration is slightly higher than the Waste Acceptance Criteria at the Redwood Landfill in Novato. The closest landfill in this region that will accept this material is the Norcal Waste Systems Hay Road Landfill in Vacaville. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for trucking service to off-haul soil from the WWTP to Norcal Waste Systems Hay Road landfill in Vacaville to WIPF Construction at $27.93 per ton for an approximate total of $20,947.50. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not authorize award and provide direction to Staff for alternative action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ann Burck, Project Engineer Bill Pounders, WWTP Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A APPROVED: '~ Candace Horsley, City Manager,s, Bids for trucking services were requested from three firms, WIPF Construction, Total Waste Systems, and Kiewit. WlPF Construction was the overall Iow bidder at $21,598.85. Refer to the bid summary table below for a complete listing of bid amounts. Bid Summary Table WIPF Construction $21,598.85 Kiewit (Archer Trucking) Total Waste Systems $28,5OO.OO Declined to Bid Funds for trucking services have been budgeted in the WWTP Operations and Maintenance Fund under account number 612.3580.690.000 and adequate funds are available for the requested purchase. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7f DATE: June 21,2006 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW SULLIVAN-PALATEK MODEL D185Q11JD 185 CFM AIR COMPRESSOR FOR THE WATER AND SEWER MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO NATION'S RENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,899.91; AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN SAME AMOUNT. Staff is requesting authorization to purchase a New Sullivan-Palatek Model D185Q11JD Air Compressor. A new air compressor is needed to replace an older Sullivan D125Q compressor purchased in 1989. This has been an excellent unit, but it is old and no longer dependable. This piece of equipment is used daily. A great deal of our work is emergency repairs and equipment must be reliable and immediately accessible day and night. The new compressor is a little bigger and can operate two air hammers at the same time and will significantly shorten repair times. Sometimes our work load requires two crews and two compressors are needed. The older Sullivan unit will serve as the back-up unit when a second work crew is needed. The back-up compressor at the Corporation Yard was sold at the last auction. There are no other air compressors suitable for water and sewer repair activities and available for emergency use in the City. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve award of bid to Nation's Rent for the purchase of a Sullivan-Palatek Model D185Q11JD 185 CFM Air Compressor Amount of $11,899.91and authorize budget amendment for same amount. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not authorize the award and provide direction to Staff for alternative action. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ann Burck, Project Engineer Gary Dogali, Water and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A APPROVED! Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager Requests for bids were sent to all qualified vendors on file. Bids were returned by four vendors. Nation's Rents was the overall Iow bidder at $11,899.91. Refer to the bid summary table below for a complete listing of bid amounts. Bid Summary Table Nation's Rents West Coast Pneumatics, Inc Cisco Air System, Inc Edward R. Bacon $11,899.91 $13,010.81 $13,250.02 $14,584.14 Funds for a new Sullivan-Palatek D185Q11JD air compressor are available in: the Water Enterprise Fund, account #820.3901.800.000 (50%) and the Sewer Maintenance Fund, account #612.3510.800.000 (50%). AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7_q DATE: June 21, 2006 SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PURCHASE OF 36,435,000 GALLONS OF WATER AT A UNIT PRICE OF $2.08 PER THOUSAND GALLONS FROM MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,469.18; AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN SAME AMOUNT Water was purchased from Millview County Water District from May 2 through May 11, 2006. During this time, new pumps at the Water Treatment Plant and a new mixer at the 2.5 million gallon reservoir were being installed. It was not possible to use the Ranney well until the new pumps were operational. This purchase was necessitated by high temperatures and increased water demand from irrigation in early May. Therefore, water was purchased from Millview to augment existing well capacity to meet the increased demand and provide sufficient water storage. Funds were available for this purchase in the FY '05-'06 budget under account number 820.3948.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of the purchase of 36,435,000 gallons of water from Millview County Water District in the amount of $7,469.18 and authorize budget amendment in same amount. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Ann Burck, Project Engineer Alan Jamison, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A APPROVED: ~ ~~~City -'~nager Candace Horsley, AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 7h DATE: June 21, 2006 SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT TO SENTINEL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, LLC FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,894.00 The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Study for the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvement Project concluded "the plant expansion area lies within a zone of potential sensitivity from a prehistoric cultural resource standpoint. Though surface resources were not encountered, it is possible that such resources could be encountered during ground disturbance and excavation activities." Onsite archaeological monitoring during excavation activities was recommended as a mitigation measure. The monitor would be regularly present during excavation activities and would prepare a report following their completion. Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide archaeological monitoring services were sent to 12 consulting firms shown in Attachment #1. One proposal was received from Sentinel Archaeological Research, LLC. The proposal and monitoring program submitted by Sentinel met the requirements of the RFP. Sentinel has the requisite qualifications and experience needed to conduct the archaeological monitoring program. Therefore, a consultant contract was awarded to Sentinel in the amount of $8,894.00. Funds were budgeted in the FY '05-'06 budget and are available for this contract under account number 611.7410.800.003. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification of the award of a consultant contract to Sentinel Archaeological Research, LLC for archaeological monitoring services for the WWTP Improvement Project in the amount of $8,894.00. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Ann Burck, Project Engineer/Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Archaeological Consultants APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Manager ITEM No. 7h ATTACHMENT 1 Archaeological Consultants PCR Services Corporation Amy M. Holmes. M.A., RPA One Ventura, Suite 150 Irvine, CA. 92618-3328 Peak & Associates, Inc. Melinda Peak, M.A. 3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329 E1 Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Mr. Rene Peron, M.A. 318 Florence Avenue Sebastopol, CA 95472 Prather Archaeology Douglas S. Prather, M.A. 5566 Fifer Lane Kelseyville, CA. 95451 Professional Archaeological Services Phillip de Barros, Ph.D., RPA 13730 Via Cima Bella San Diego, CA. 92129 Roscoe, James, M.A. 3781 Brookwood Drive Bayside, CA. 95524 Sentinel Archaeological Research, LLC Alex DeGeorgey 735 Lytton Station Road Geyserville, CA. 95441 Sierra Valley Cultural Planning C. Kristina Roper, M.A. 42181 Mynatt Drive Three Rivers, CA. 92371 Statistical Research, Inc. Christopher D. Dore, Ph.D., P.O. Box 31865 Tuscon, AZ 95751 Summit Envirosolution Kathryn Atamon, Ph. D. 813 n. Plaza Street Carson City, Nevada 89701 SWCA Environmental Consultants Nancy E. Sikes, Ph.D. 23392 Madero, Suite L Mission Viejo, CA. 92691 ITEM NO. 7i DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD BID FOR PURCHASE OF A 2006 TOYOTA PRIUS (HYBRID VEHICLE) FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,816.16 A request for bid for a new 2006/2007 4-Door Hybrid Vehicle was sent to three dealers in the area by the City's Purchasing Agent. The City received three bids as shown on Attachment 1. This hybrid vehicle will be used by the City's Public Utility Department. One vehicle is being purchased for use by three divisions (electric, water & sewer) administrative staff and for conference and travel. The vehicle was budgeted in 2005/2006 fiscal year account numbers as follows: 800.3733.800.000 (electric); 820.3901.800.000 (water); and 612.3505.800.000 (sewer). Staff recommends awarding the bid to the lowest bidder, Hansel Toyota in Petaluma, for the purchase of a 2006 Toyota Prius in the amount of $23,816.16. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for the purchase of a 2006 Toyota Prius (hybrid vehicle) for the Public Utility Department to Hansel Toyota in Petaluma in the amount of $23,816.16. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Reject bid and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Liz Kirkley, Electrical Distribution Engineer Liz Kirkley, Electrical Distribution Engineer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Bid Results for 2006 4 Door Hybrid Vehicle APPROVED.~ Candace Horsley, City'l~,anager I ATTACHMENT ,, ~ ~_~ ~_~ o o o o o o .~. ' , ...... · r- 'r- 'r" > ~ ~ AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 7i DATE: ,June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF SERVICES FROM ARROW FENCING TO REPLACE DAMAGED FENCING AT THE UKIAH SPORTS COMPLEX IN AN AMOUNT OF $6,000 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 to replace damaged fencing from Arrow Fencing in the amount of $6,000. During the New Year's Flood, the Ukiah Sports Complex sustained considerable damage when floodwater from the Russian River spilled over it banks to the north of the facility. As the floodwater flowed south through the Complex a number of structures and amenities were damaged including approximately 540 feet of chain link fence on Fields 1 & 3. After inspecting the facility, FEMA has accepted the City's claim for damages to the identified fence. The FEMA worksheet for Project ~47 that contains the scope of this damage is included for Council's review as Attachment #1. As part of the City's effort to rebuild the facility, the Purchasing Division solicited bids from all contractors on the City's qualified bidder list. Arrow Fencing was the only contractor to respond with a quote by the close of bid on April 28, 2006. Arrow Fencing's bid of $6,000 was within the estimate provided by FEMA. The purchase was charged to the 100.6001.250.000- 6001 account (Park Division Contractual Services- Flood). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the purchase of services from Arrow Fencing to replace damaged fencing at the Ukiah Sports Complex in an amount of $6,000 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community/General Services Director, Jake Burgess, Activities/Sports Coordinator and Jarrod Myer, Parks Lead Worker Candace Horsley, City Manager and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor 1. FEMA Project Worksheet APPROVED: Candace Horsi'~y, City Manag~er Attachment//1 IIII I J[ I II IIII IIIIIII I[ III FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M B No 3067-0151 PROJECT WORKSHEET Expires April 30, 2001 ,, " PAPERWORK BURDEN I)ISCI,osuRE NOTICE l"ub!/c reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 30 minutes. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing inqtruct OhS. searching existing data sources, gathering vmd maintaining the needed data, and completing and submitting the t'om~s. You are Hot' required to respond to this collectivH of information unle:3s a valid ()NIB control nurnber is displayed in the upper right corner of'J~c forms. Scad comments regarding the accuracy' of the btu'den estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden [nfbrmation Coi!ections Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, SW. Washington, DC 20472. Paperwork Reduction Project (3067-0151). NOTE: Do not send >,our completed form to this address. DECD~RATION NOL ...... ] PROJECT NO, j ~IPS NO. " ' DATE " t CATEGORY -DR- CA / 47 / 045-81134-00 March 27, 2006l G FEMA- !628 / DAMAGED FACILITY WORK COMPLETE AS OF -- PARKING LOT AND FENCING AT UKIAH SPORTS COMPLEX 3/27/06 50 % APPLICANT ........ [ COUNTY CITY OF UKIAHI MENDOCINO LOCATION ..... I LATITUDE l LONGITUDE 1/!2 M FAST OF US !01 IN UKIAH. CA ! 39.16027I -123.*,9720 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND ,DIMENSIONS VELOCITY OVERFLOW FROM THE RUSSIAN RIVER AND ORRS CREEK WASHED OUT (240 FT X 225 FT X 2 IN) 334 CY OF 3/4 IN STONE PARKING LOT SURFACE. SECTIONS OF CHAIN LINK FENCE TOTALING 300 LF OF 6 FT PLUS 90 LF OF 4 FT WERE UPLIFTED AND DESTROYED. ...... SCOPE DF WORK WORK COMPLETED: -INSTALL (240 FT X 225 FT X 1 tN) 167 CY OF 3/'4 tN STONE SURFACE. -REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF 300 LF OF 6 FT CHAIN LINK FENCING. -REMOVE AN[) DISPOSE OF 90 LF OF 4 FT CHAIN LINK FENCING. COMPLETED COSTS ARE ESTIblATED AS COST DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF SITE VISIT WORK TO BE COMPLETED: -INSTALL (240 FT X 225 FT X I IN) 167 CY OF 3/4 IN STONE SURFACE. -INSTALL 300 LF OF 6 FT CHAIN LiNK FENCING. -INSTALL 90 LF OF 4 FT CHAIN LINK FENCING. COSTS ESTIMATED USING RS MEANS. SEE ATTACHED CALCULATION SHEET HAZARD MITIGATION CONSIDERED, NO VIABLE OPTIONS FOUND. Does ihu Scope of Work ch;roSe Lh~ prc-di~a.$~er condi:ions at lh~ site? L.~ Ye~ ~.. No <,pcci:d Con's dc."'atJ( n~ ssu¢s {Deluded? ~ Yes ~ No Ha. zard Mitigation pro;:osa! includ,zd? ~ Yes ~ No ts there [r;~urance coverage ,m '.his ;i~c!liD'.} [] Yes [] No ......... ~,Roj'i~i:r cOST ................ ITEM j CODE NARRATIVE , , QUANTITY/UNIT UNIT PRICE COST ........ i WORK COMPLETED / $0.00 1 9999 INSTALL I IN OF 3/4 IN STONE SURFACE 1.00 / LS $6,4!0.25 $6,410.25 ~ ", 9999 FENCE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL 1.001LS $.1:949.10 $1,949.10 I WORK TO BE COMPLETED t $0.00 3~[ 9999 [INSTALL IINOF314INSTONESURFA_CE 1.001LS_____ $6,410,25 $6,410.25 4 9999 INSTALL FENCING 1.00/LS _$5,553..15 $5~553.1.5 ! / $0.00 [ ! ...... : .... so.oD ' ~ ..... / $0.00 j , / S0.00 TOTAL COST $20,322.75 i P;?~P;d'~ED BY: lvlI~'HAEL GAYRARD J TITLE: PROJECT OF~ICI~R '"J I iiii iiii F~.M~ Form 90-g1, SED 98 REP~CE$ ALL PREVIOUS EDITIONS. ]/I 0 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 7k DATE: June 21, 2006 REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FROM DELL MARKETING, L.P. IN AN AMOUNT OF $43,216.94 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is requesting authorization to purchase replacement computer of equipment in the amount of $43,216.94. Staff is requesting this purchase to replace older computers that are over 4 years old and are using obsolete operating systems (Microsoft Windows 98). In addition, these computers have components that have exceeded their MTF (Mean Time to Failure) ratings resulting in security risks and increased maintenance/support costs. The Information Technology Department has confirmed replacement of these systems are warranted. If approved, the Purchasing Department will issue a Purchase Order for replacement computer equipment through Dell Marketing, L.P. for $43,216.94. Funds are included in the FY05-06 budget for this purpose. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize acquisition of replacement computer equipment from Dell Marketing, L.P. in the amount of $43,216.94. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Steve Butler, Information Technology Supervisor Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City er AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 71 DATE: June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD ACQUISITION OF A MARKING TRUCK TO LINE MASTER ENGINEERING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,985.46 FUNDED THROUGH THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND BUDGET SUMMARY: The City Public Works Department worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain bids for the acquisition of a new 2006 or 2007, marking truck with airless spray system as a replacement for City vehicle number 2711, a 1989 Chevrolet 1-Ton truck which has been converted to serve as a paint marking truck. Vehicle number 2711 has had the motor rebuilt once and the transmission overhauled twice. The paint marking utility bed that is currently on this truck had its origins on an older paint truck. The truck is beyond its service life and is due for replacement. The marking truck will be used by the Street Maintenance division to paint pavement markings such as turn arrows, STOP markings, bicycle markings, crosswalks, etc. Six companies received requests for quotations. Five sealed proposal were received and opened by the Purchasing Agent on May 26, 2006. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award acquisition of marking truck with airless spray system to Line Master Engineering in the amount Of $73,985.46 for the Department of Public Works using funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Not award acquisition of 2-axle truck with dump body. 2. Direct staff to readvertise for bids. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Equipment Replacement Fund Summary Sheet APPROVED!~~ Candace Horsley, Ci Manager AG-MarkingTruck. SUM Award Acquisition of marking truck to Line Master Engineering in the amount of $73,985.46 and approve budget amendment in the amount of $43,985.46 for the Department of Public Works June 21, 2006 Page 2 The Iow bidder is Line Master Engineering of Long Beach, CA, which quoted a price of $73,985.46 for a 2007 Ford F-350 marking truck with airless spray system. The bid amount of $73,985.46 will be funded from the Equipment Replacement Fund (698) as shown on Attachment 1. Staff recommends award of acquisition of the marking truck with airless spray system. Tabulation of Quotes - Marking Truck Company Model Quote Quoted Amount Line Master Engineering Long Beach, CA Don Kott Ford Carson, CA 2007 Ford F-350 $73,985.46 2007 Ford F36 CC $75,910.56 TMT Pathway various $83,142.06 Salem, OR to $86,656.86 Fairway Ford Fleet Center Placentia, CA EZ-Liner Industries Orange City, IA Ford F450-F46 $87,844.26 (did not specify year model) No Bid cc 71 AG-MarkingTruck. SUM Z ZD Z © Attc~chment # ~' i i iiii AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 7m DATE: June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO DIMENSION FORD WEST FOR THE PURCHASE OF A NEW 2007 3/,, TON TRUCK WITH A MODULAR ANIMAL TRANSPORT BODY IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,650.25 AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is requesting authorization to purchase a new 2007 Ford F250 4x2 single cab % ton truck with a modular animal transport body in the amount of $36,650.25 for City of Ukiah Animal Control. In the short time the Community Services Department has been providing animal control services, a variety of interim vehicles surplused from other City departments have been utilized to allow time to budget and research an acceptable vehicle. The vehicle currently being utilized for animal control presents a number of health and safety issues including poor sanitation and ventilation. It consists of a small pickup with a single cage in the bed of the vehicle. The new vehicle will have a number of features that will minimize the potential for injury to the handler and animal including: · Separate cages for multiple animals and a storage compartment for equipment. · Stainless steel cages with sloped floors and drains for easy sanitation to prevent disease transmission. · Security doors and interior lights. · Ventilation and controlled heat/air unit. · Telescoping ramp to guide animals to the elevated cages. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION' Approve award of bid to Dimension Ford West for the purchase of a new 2007 % ton truck with a modular animal transport body in the amount of $36,650.25 and authorize budget amendment to the Park's Division Machinery and Equipment account in the amount of $15,650.25. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Reject all bids and remand to staff with direction. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community/General Services Director and Brien Jones, Public Services Worker Candace Horsley, City Manager and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor Bid Specifications for Animal Control Vehicle APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Manager While an alternative fuel vehicle would be ideal, staff was unable to identify an acceptable model that could accommodate the specialty animal transport body and the needs of park maintenance. The Purchasing Department along with the Public Service Worker developed the minimum specifications for the transport body and truck. All vendors representing the major truck manufacturers including Ford, GM and equivalents were eligible to submit bids. The bid specifications are included as Attachment #1 for review. Requests for bids were sent out to all qualified vendors on file, and a notice was also published in the Ukiah Daily Journal. Bids were returned by five vendors. Dimension Ford West was the overall Iow bidder at $36,650.25. Refer to the bid summary table for a complete listing of bid amounts. Bid Summary Table Dimension Ford West $36,650.25 Downtown Ford Sales $36,999.33 Melrose Ford $37,285.02 $38,104.88 Northlake Ford-Mercury Advantage Chevrolet $38,463.60 The need for the vehicle was previously identified and $21,000 has been allocated in the current Fiscal Year budget. Staff is requesting approval of a budget amendment in the amount of $15,650.25 to the Park's Division Machinery and Equipment account (100.6001.800.000) to cover the total purchase price of $36,650.25. Funds from Parks Division in the Equipment Replacement Fund (698) can be utilized for this budget amendment. CITY OF UKIAH Attochrr~ent #~ EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE (1) NEW 200612007 3,~ TON TRUCK, COMPLETE WITH ONE (1) NEW LAMINATED MODULAR ANIMAL TRANSPORT BODY The City of Ukiah invites bids for furnishing one (1) new 200612007 3A Ton Truck, complete with one (1) new laminated modular animal transport body. Bids are to Include all installation and delivery costs. The following specifications shall be considered minimum, however, bidders who feel they can supply a comparable vehicle that does not fully meet the detailed specifications are encouraged to submit bids. All deviations from these specifications shall be described in the · bid proposal. There will be no trade-ins involved in this bid. Bidder shall, as indicated on the Request for Bid form, state the total price for the new vehicle as specified (including any options and accessories), sales tax, destination charges and any other applicable fees or charges, FOB the City of Ukiah. Only proposals from licensed dealers (new) will be considered. The City reserves the right to select and purchase a vehicle directly from the State of California Department of General Services. Please contact Mary Horger at (707) 463-6233 if you have any questions regarding these specifications. GENERAL !N..S. TRUCTIONS TO_BIDDERS · . · Each bidder shall attach to his bid a complete detailed description of the unit he proposes to furnish. All equipment catalogued as standard shall be furnished and included in the purchase price of the unit. The total price shall include all equipment, accessories and optional items. In making its selection, the City will consider all factors relating to the vehicle including operating performance, operator comfort, safety, service and parts availability as well as cost. The vehicle furnished under these specifications is to carry the standard warranty offered to the general public. A complete detailed description of the standard warranty shall be provided with the bid. The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to determine whicl~ bid, in its opinion, will best serve the needs*and requirements of the Crty. Page I of 5 The successful bidder shall supply the vehicle fully equipped and ready for service at the time of delivery. Dealer shall process registration and title transfer for exempt license plates to the Department of Motor Vehicles on behalf of the City of Ukiah. I. SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAMINATED MODULAR,ANIMAL TRANSPORT BODY Manufacturer:. Mavron, Inc. OR EQUIVALENT Model Number: ATL-6 Overall dimensions: 97 inches long, 79 inches wide, and 50 inches high. Bodv Design and Construction · The extema! walls and roof panels consist of an aluminum frame work of 1" x 1" square and lU x 2" rectangular tubing for strength. · The 1" open width of the frame work is filled with an R-5 rated foam insulation board. · The internal partitions are made of ~" plywood with fiberglass sheeting bonded to both sides. · All external seams are covered with aluminum angle which is double sealed with an adhesive sealant to make the unit water proof. · All internal seams are sealed with the same water proof adhesive sealant. · The external mounting frame for the unit consists of 14 ga. 1" x 2" rectangular steel tubing which is undercoated. This framework is under the entire width and length of the unit. · The unit is mounted to the chassis with 4 sets of center reinforced rubber absorbers and grade 8 bolts. Be Animal ~9mpa .rtments The ATL-6 has 3 compartments on the curbside and 4 compartments on the driver's side. The front pass through compartment is a large pass-through type cage with a solid swing divider panel in the center. Cage dimension:. 39" high by 26" wide by 73" deep, can be divided into 2 compartments 32 and 41 inches deep. The right (passenger) side double compartment is located behind the front pass through cage and comes equipped with a solid swing divider panel which allows it to be used as one large compartment or two 'individual compartments. Cage dimension: 39" high by 66" wide by 24" deep, can be divided into 2 compartments 33" wide. Three individual left (driver) side compartments, not including the front pass through, come equipped with a removable shelf panel which allows these compartments to become "double-decked". Two cages have similar dimensions: 39" high by 27" wide by 22" deep. One small cage above the fuel fill has the dimension: 30" high by 13" wide by 24" deep. All animal compartments have 18 ga. Stainless steel floors, made from 304-2B stainless steel. The floors slope 1" towards the rear or the middle of the compartment to a 1-1/2" ID drain for the removal of fluids. · Each compartment comes equipped with a 4" flush mounted stainless steel light that is operated by a switch in the cab. There is a total of six lights. Page 2 of 5 Gl D, E. Fe Each compartment has an interior stainless steel security door with locking two point latches. The .security door is easily operated with one hand and has a catch-pole opening. Door.~ All 8 exterior doom and frames are constructed of aluminum extrusion. Vents are located in the doors in blower only models. · Exterior door latches are chrome plated "L' handles, which are keyed alike. · The exterior and interior animal doom have springs that hold them in the open position for animal loading and unloading operations. Rear Storage C..o..mpa .rtment The storage compartment is accessed from the rear of the module. The compartment has a 24. ga. Stainless. steel floor, There are 3 built-in shelves at the top of the compartment for catch poles, stretcher and loading ramp, The dimensions are 23-1/2" wide x 28" high x 55" deep. A light is located at the front of the compartment and is operated by a switch in the cab. Air Circulation The animal transport body comes with a 356 CFM blower to circulate air to each animal compartment. The air is ducted IN and OUT of each of the six animal compartments through adjustable Iouvered vents that control air flow. The control switch for each blower system is located conveniently in the cab of the vehicle. A digital thermometer is mounted to the cab rear window for monitoring of the air circulation temperature. Installed with auxiliary heat and air-conditioning unit which provides 24,000 BTU of cooling and 24,000 BTU of heat, with a 295 CFM blower to circulate air to each animal compartment. The auxiliary heat and air-conditioning control panel is a cab mounted digital touch screen thermostat allowing the user to set and maintain the temperature in the animal compartments. Additional Features An ABS black plastic console is mounted on the transmission tunnel (hump of the floor). The three-speed blower switch and heavy-duty toggle switches for the compartment lights are located here. The console also houses the master disconnect switch (colhersee) with indicator light and the circuit breakers and fuse blocks for the wiring to the module. Tail lights with stop/turn and parking functions - surface mount L.E.D. Reverse light - surface mount sealed incandescent · Third brake light-high level red L.E.D. Page 3 of 5 Ge Lower body skirting - polished aluminum diamond tread plate. Loading ramp- Standard Unit exterior color- bright white Electrical: all add-on electrical components shall be wired independent of the factory electrical circuitry. The wire from the battery to Animal Transport Body's fuse block is protected with a master fuse, placed in-line, under the hood. Ramp Informa~ign & sp~ifice.tions The loading ramp is made of polypropylene and has a convenient carry handle. .. · The walking surface of the ramp is carpeted for better traction as the animal walks up the ramp. The dimensions of the ramp are 18' wide by 42" to 70" long (extended) by 5-1/2" thick. Weight is 20 lbs. Page 4 of 5 II. SPECIFICATION .FOR TRUCK, CAB & CHA'S. SI(~ Ford F-250 or GM 2500 Pick-up truck chassis, or equivalent. · 56" Cab to axel length (standard for an 8' bed) · V-8 Engine · 5-Speed Automatic Transmission · Interior:. Dark Slate Gray · Air Conditioning · Alternator 100 amp min., larger preferred. · Mirrors - wide body. · Radio: AM/FM Stereo · Color: White · Seats: HD Vinyl 40/20/40 Split Bench · Tires & Wheels: Standard · Power locks and windows. · Air Bay: Dual Driver & Front Passenger · Power Steering · Full Size Spare · Payload capacity: 2600# minimum · Trailer Towing Package Page 5 of 5 ITEM NO. 7n DATE: June 21,2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF BOLLARDS FOR PARK ENTRANCES FROM CAL PIPE BOLLARDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,254.73 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 18 bollards from Cai Pipe Bollards in the amount of $8,254.73. The removable and locking bollards will be used to replace old chain gates at 7 different locations within the City's parks. The existing chain gates at various maintenance entrances are not pedestrian friendly or visually appealing. The new bollards will be well marked and will allow an opening for pedestrian traffic. In addition, they can be removed to allow for maintenance access to the locations. The Purchasing Division in conjunction with the Community Services Department created the bid specifications that called for 18 forest green 4" diameter carbon steel bollards with embedment sleeves and flip top lids. Bids were sent out to all known vendors. Cai Pipe Bollards with a bid of $8,254.73 was the only vendor to respond with a quote by the close of bid on May 16, 2006. The purchase was charged to the 140.6050.800.000 account (Park Development Fund). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the purchase of bollards for park entrances from Cai Pipe Bollards in the amount of $8,254.73. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sage Sangiacomo, Community/General Services Director and Jake Burgess, Activities/Sports Coordinator, Tom Hamblet, Park Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager and Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor N/A APPROVED: '~ ~~ .~ Candace Horsley, City Manag~ ITEM NO: 7o DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACQUISITION OF SERVICES FROM CITY OF LIGHT SOUND AND RECORDING FOR SOUND MANAGEMENT AND EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION FOR THE 2006 SUNDAYS IN THE PARK CONCERT SERIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,700. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, staff is filing with the City Council this report regarding the acquisition of services from City of Light Sound and Recording for the sound management of the 2006 Sundays in the Park Concert Series in the amount of $7,200. In addition, the City will be utilizing the City of Light Sound and Recording for the load in and out of equipment as required by the various performance agreements between the City of Ukiah and the artists in an amount not to exceed $1,500. City of Light has provided professional and consistent sound management services for the past thirteen years. The event is funded by private sponsorship, and the funds are held in a trust account that the City administers. The total contract amount is not to exceed $8,700 and will be charged to the Concert Trust Fund (900.205.226). The contractor maintains the appropriate insurance requirements on file with the City. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive report regarding the acquisition of services from City of Light Sound and Recording for sound management and equipment mobilization of the 2006 Sundays in the Park Concert Series in an amount not to exceed $8,700. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Director Candace Horsley, City Manager N/A APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Manage AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Item No 7p Date: June 21,2006 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO PITNEY BOWES, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF A D1950 PREMIUM PACKAGE W/OMAR READER FOLDER/INSERTER SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,542.30 The current billing insert machine is 5 years out of warranty and parts and service are very difficult to acquire. Staff evaluated a number of Foldedlnserter systems and found Pitney Bowes offered a foldedinserter system that meets and exceeds requirements of the proposed system purchase. This system will assist the Finance Department in the mailing of utility statements along with inserts from other departments. It can also be used to meet the processing demands of large mailings during the notifications process of many projects. Pitney Bowes has offered the lowest bid on the system that includes the OMR reader. The foldedinserter which is $27,542.30, includes tax, shipping, and the cost of the first year maintenance agreement and has been budgeted in the 2005/2006 Fiscal Year in Account Number 698.1305.800.000. Sufficient funds are available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for the purchase of model D1950 Premium Package Folder/Inserter to Pitney Bowes, Inc. in the amount of $27,542.3O. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bid and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Mike McCann. Finance Director Prepared by: Kay McLellan, Utility Customer Service Team Leader Coordinated with: Mike McCann, Finance Director and Candace Horsley, City Manager APPROVED BY: Candace Horsley, City nager AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a DATE: June 21, 2006 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: APPROVAL OF A MZNOR SUBD]:V1'SZON EXCEPTZON TO THE FRONTAGE RE(~UI'REMENT OF THE SUBDI'VI'S]:ON ORDI'NANCE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 733 SOUTH OAK STREET SUHHARY: A property owner is proposing to divide the residential parcel located at 733 South Oak Street into two parcels, one of which would be approximately six inches short of the minimum 60-foot street frontage requirement. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is seeking an exception to the frontage requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed the matter and is recommending approval of the exception. Accordingly, consideration of the proposed Minor Subdivision Exception, rather than the actual subdivision of the property itself, is before the Council. Backqround: The project also required a variance from the City's zoning requirements. On April 12, 2006 the Planning Department held a public hearing and approved a Minor Variance for this project (continued on page 2) RECOt4HENDED Ac'rJ:ON: 1. Conduct a public hearing regarding Minor Subdivision Exception No. 05-49; 2. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Minor Subdivision Exception; and 3. Approve the Minor Subdivision Exception to allow a lot that is approximately six inches short of the minimum frontage requirement. ALTERNATZVE COUNC]:L POLTCY OPTTON: Do not approve the project and provide direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Publicly noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code Applicant, Mr. Martin Gadea Sandra Liston, Associate Planner Candace Horsley, City Manager and Charley Stump, Planning Director Location Map Tentative Parcel Map Assessors Parcel Map for east side of Oak Street Mitigated Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49 Applicant-submitted letter dated October 24, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 14, 2006 Canaace Horsley, City Manager 1~ to allow the creation of a lot that, at 59.45 feet, is approximately six inches short of the minimum 60 foot lot width of the Ukiah Zoning Ordinance. Thereafter, on .lune 14, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the exception application and unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council authorize the requested exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Both the subdivision exception application, at issue here, and the variance application, approved by the Planning Commission, seek to achieve the same result: creation of a lot that is six inches short of the minimum required. They do so, however, based on different code sections. The subdivision exception application seeks relief from the Subdivision Ordinance, while the variance application sought relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Only the subdivision exception application is before the Council for consideration, since the City Engineer is vested with the authority to approve the subdivision application. Accordingly, if the subdivision exception is approved, then the minor subdivision application for the actual two-parcel division of the subject property would go before the City Engineer for a public hearing scheduled for June 22, 2006. Existing Conditions: The subject property is an approximately 12,116 square foot parallelogram- shaped parcel, the northern one-half of which is developed with a single family residence, while the southern one-half is vacant and undeveloped. The City block on which the subject property is situated is trapezoid-shaped, featuring property lines that meet at angles, rather than square corners. According to the applicant's licensed land surveyor, prior to an earlier two-parcel merger of the subject property it was described by two separate deeds, each indicating a street frontage of 60 feet (see Attachment 5). The subject property as a whole was thus assumed to have 120 feet of street frontage and it was not until the applicant's surveyor conducted a survey that it was determined it was 0.55 feet shorter than assumed and as described in the prior deeds. Please see Attachment 2 to this report for a copy of the survey of the subject property. These six inches would preclude subdivision unless this subdivision exception was approved. Proposed Conditions: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate and distinct legal parcels. Proposed Lot I would be an approximately 6,116 square foot parcel with a lot width and street frontage of 59.45 linear feet along the west property line. This parcel would contain the single family residence referenced above. Proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot parcel with a lot width and street frontage of 60 feet along the west property line. This proposed lot would be vacant and undeveloped at the time of the successful subdivision of the property, but the applicant has expressed an intent to develop it with a duplex at some point in the near future. This proposed lot meets the minimum subdivision and development standards of the UMC and, accordingly, proposed Lot 2 is not the topic of discussion of this subdivision exception application. The discussion in this report is limited to the issues that surround the street frontage exception associated with proposed Lot 1. The Council's role with regard to the exception is to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and make a decision on the exception application. Thereafter, the City Engineer would hear the application to allow the two-parcel division of the property. COr4PL~ZANCE WZTH FRONTAGE RE(~UTREMENT OF SUBD~ZVTS~ZON ORD~ZNANCE: The Subdivision Ordinance sets the minimum site area and frontage requirements for Type I (residentially- used) subdivisions. It provides that each interior parcel must be at least 6,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 60 feet, which is measured along the Oak Street side of the property only. Article 19 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows exceptions to subdivision standards where there are special circumstances affecting the property, where the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of petitioner, and where the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Each of the findings is discussed in more detail below. In this case, proposed Lot 1 would be an approximately 6,116 square foot lot with frontage of 59.45 feet, while proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot lot with frontage of 60 feet. Both proposed parcels meet the minimum required site area standard for interior lots, and proposed Lot 2 adheres to the minimum frontage requirement, but the frontage for proposed Lot 1 would be approximately six inches short of the minimum. See Attachment 2. Special Circumstances: In this case, special conditions apply to the subject property and the City block as a whole which support the request for relief. The City block that is bound by Mill Street on the north, State Street on the east, Gobbi Street on the south, and Oak Street on the west is an unusual trapezoid-shape, with two parallel sides, and two non-parallel sides. This configuration makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create standard rectangular-shaped parcels that are parallel to the street and exhibit square corners. The result of the configuration of the block is that all of the parcels within it are irregular-shaped. Property Right: The special condition of the shape of the property itself and the trapezoid shape of the City block in general is a constraint that would deprive this property owner of the opportunity to subdivide and develop the large parcel with an allowed use. In this case, the proposed vacant and undeveloped parcel would meet the City's minimum subdivision and development standards and future development of said parcel should not be constrained in any way. The other proposed parcel with the existing residence would be slightly substandard with regards to street frontage, but staff notes that four of the existing single family residences situated in the 700 block of South Oak Street exhibit reduced frontages in the range of 50 to 55 feet. At five to 10 feet less than the current requirement, these properties exhibit significantly greater variation from the frontage standard than the six inches requested here. Public Welfare: Lastly, approval of the requested subdivision exception as to the amount of frontage will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of which it is situated. Staff bases this conclusion on the fact the amount of relief sought is very minor (0.9 percent), that all parcels of this trapezoid-shaped City block are irregular, and that the developable lot that would be created by the future subdivision of the property meets the minimum requirements of both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it is doubtful that the minor six inch reduction in frontage would be distinguishable to abutting property owners or to passers-by. Staff concludes that these conditions deprive the property owner of the opportunity to subdivide a 119.45 foot wide lot into two 60 foot wide lots, since one is six inches short, and staff is of the opinion that the proposed amount of street frontage is otherwise entirely consistent with other residentially-used lots in the immediate surrounding area. PLANN~ZNG COMM~ZSS~ZON D~ZSCUSS~ZON AND RECOMMENDATION: On .~une 14, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the requested exception to the subdivision ordinance and unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the exception and the Negative Declaration associated with the exception. CONCLU$]:ON$: Planning staff conducted a thorough analysis of the planning-related issues associated with the requested reduction in the amount of frontage and concluded that the approximately 59.45 foot wide lot is fair and reasonable since the reduced frontage is a special circumstance affecting the property, the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner, and the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's conclusion when it recommended to the City Council that it approve the exception. PLANN]:NG COI~II~I]:SS]:ON'S RECOI~II~IENDAT]:ON AND F:]:ND:[NGS: The Planning Commission's recommendations for the different actions related to this project have been separated for purposes of clarity and are listed below. Recommendation for the Adoption of a Mitiqated Negative Declaration: The Planning Department's recommendation for the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project is based, in part, on the following findings: Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project as conditioned does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment; . Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the ]:nitial Study, the project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals; 3. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the ]:nitial Study, the project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and m Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not, as conditioned, result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Recommendation for the Approval of the IVlinor Subdivision Exception: The Planning Department's recommendation for approval of IVlinor Subdivision Exception 05-49 to allow the creation of a residentially-used parcel that is approximately six inches short of the minimum 60 foot frontage requirement is based, in part, on the following findings: . The residentially zoned parcels are consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan, including the Land Use Element for the HDR classification that encourages a variety of different housing options within that classification as well as the siting issues for new parcels; . The proposed lot that is approximately six inches short of the minimum required is generally consistent with the use and development standards for the R-3 zoning district, including maximum height, minimum site area, density, yard setbacks, and on-site parking, and varies from these standards only with regards to the required lot width; . The Planning Commission approved a variance from the R-3 zoning district standards and made a recommendation to the City Council that it approve an exception from the subdivision standards to allow a six inch reduction in minimum required lot width/frontage. . The proposed lot that is six inches short of the minimum frontage requirement is the result of the trapezoid configuration of the City block itself with property lines meeting at angles rather than square corners; o . , . , The proposed lot that is six inches short of the street frontage requirement will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare since the existing residence located upon the lot adheres to the use and development standards for the zoning district, save for the amount of street frontage; Special circumstances affect the property, including its parallelogram shape and the trapezoid shape of the City block in general, which make creation of two lots with 60 feet of frontage out of a single large and oversized lot with 119.45 feet of frontage impossible; The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of petitioner, including the right to develop the residentially-zoned parcel with an allowed land use, because the vacant parcel that would be created would meet the minimum UMC requirements; The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated because the amount of relief sought is very minor and virtually indistinguishable from adjoining properties, all parcels on this trapezoid-shaped City block are irregular, and the developable lot that would be created by the future subdivision of the property meets the minimum requirements of both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; and The granting of the subdivision exception will cause no significant adverse environmental impacts that require additional analysis, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted for the project. LOCATION MAP Attachment Minor Subdivision No. 05-44; Minor Variance'No. 05-48; Subdivision Exception No. 05-49: Jackson./Gadea 733 South Oak Street (APN 002-301-45) 'CITY OF UKIAH CMC CENTER YOKAYO SCHOOL 0 500 1000 1500 2000. 2500 3000' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 inch = 500 feet NORTH Attachment # ~_--., , 101.4.4. RIM 95.43 IE 6' THRU.' QTY GREEN <1013 OR 27'5> PROPOSED LOT .1 6.11(6 SQ. FT. ~7.~g O= ~39 ,GADEA <2005-19'678: PARCEL 2 OARACE: (TO 8~ R~OV~) I I FoucAULT <1 '/8 OR 216> SIGNATURE Rt ciTY OF c PARCEL MAP C2, D56, PARCEL OE-C,E:DEA 57.5 SPANIE UKIAH. CA (707) :272- SURVEY0 THIS M,~P IS 8. tN SE:P~OER, .kS OF THE DA,' DARRIN E.. J '71, 150' 150' .'4 cz oi$ p~e$" t / Attachment # · ~/,~ H C~ 7')" Marshall Subd, · o · . ..... : :. ... ..~..,'.. ..! -. -~ .. ~'" ¢ ' ,~/--'"/; '.. · '(~ ' . · . ." .'- ; '...'.". ·., , .. . · · ... · .... . . · :... . . ...'~ · " i: "1 J. · ! Ari'achmeni CITY OF UKIAH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE: APPLICANT: PROJECT: LOCATION: March 20, 2006 Martin Gadea Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea 733 South Oak Street, Ukiah, California ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE: The project site consists of an approximately 12,116 square foot parcel. The northern one-half of the subject property, approximately, is developed with a single family residence while the southern one-half is vacant and undeveloped. While the Tentative Parcel Map submitted by the applicant indicates that the detached garage that is situated on the northern one-half of the property is slated for removal, it has actually already been demolished and removed at the time of preparation of this Initial Study. Five trees are Present on this portion of the property, three of which are clustered at the front of the residence, and all of which exhibit trucks with smallish diameters. The undeveloped (southern) portion of the property is covered mainly in grass with no significant trees or other natural resources. The two mature oak trees and five pear trees that are shown on the Tentative Parcel Map are not actually present on the property, having previoUsly been removed. The lot itself is relatively fiat and level with a mild incline running in an east to west direction. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements exist along the entire street frontage of the property with two separate driveway cuts. The driveway cut on the northern portion of the project site is located to the north of the existing residence, while the driveway cut on the southern portion is located at the property's extreme south end. PROJECT DESCRIPTION' The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate and distinct legal parcels. Proposed Lot 1 would be an approximately 6,116 square foot parcel that exhibits a lot width of 59.45 linear feet along the Oak Street side of the property (west property line) and which narrows to 56.47 linear feet along the east property line. This proposed parcel would contain the existing single family residence referenced above. Proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot parcel that would exhibit a lot width of 60 feet along the Oak Street side of the property and which increases to 63.35 feet along the east property line. This proposed parcel would be vacant and undeveloped at the time of the successful subdivision of the property but the applicant has expressed an intent to develop this parcel with a single family residence at some point in the near future. While no plans have been submitted for staff to review, staff assumes that the residence would exhibit the characteristics of a typical single family residence and would comply with the relevant City codes. Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision would allow the two-parcel division of the subject property, while approval of both the proposed Minor Variance and Minor Subdivision Exception would allow creation of a residential parcel that has a lot width that is approximately six inches short of the minimu¢ required by the Zoning Ordinar~ce and the Subdivision Ordinance, respectively. Accordingly, only proposed Lot I would not adhere to the minimum development standards (i.e. lot width) of both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances since proposed Lot 2 complies in all respects. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: After careful review and the preparation of an Environmental Checklist (Attachment 1), it has been determined that the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on.the environment. Flowever, a detailed and comprehensive mitigation program has been developed that will successfully mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. There is substantial evidence in the administrative record that supports this determination, including materials submitted by the applicant's professional consultants. Accordinqly,. it has been determined that the proposed project, as mitigated, will not violate any of the significance criteria, and therefore a Mitigated Neqative Declaration is · appropriate for the proiect. FINDINGS suPPORTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: . Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project as mitigated does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment. , , Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. , Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. , The potentially significant impacts resulting from this project would be mitigated to levels that are not considered to be significant if the recommended mitigation measures are 'adopted. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and further, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes cOmpliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. This Mitigated Negative Declar~on and associated Initial Study may be reviewed at the City 0f./~)l~ P~nning~. ~a/~.,// ent, Uki.,ah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, ~~ ~ I ' March 20, 200,6 ~,,~_//C/r-~le~tu"mp,~lanni~ ~Irector/Environmental Coordinator Date INITIAL STUDY I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor 'Variance 05-48; & Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49 2. Name of Project PropOnent: Martin Gadea 3, Address of Project Proponent: 575 Spanish Canyon Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482 4. Project Location: 733 South Oak Street, Ukiah, CA 5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 002-301-45 6. Date of Initial Study Preparation: March 20, 2006 7. Name of Lead Agency: City of Ukiah 8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 / (707)' 463-6200 9. Environmental Setting / Project Description: Description on pa.qe 2 of this Initial Stud¥} (See the detailed Proiect 10. Plans, Exhibits, and other Submitted Application Materials: All submitted application materials are available for review at the City of Ukiah Planninq Department- 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah. 11.Initial Study Prepared by: Ukiah Planninq Department Staff INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE: The project site consists of an approximately .12,116 square foot parcel. The northern one-half of the subject property, approximately, is developed with a single family residence while the southern one-half is vacant and undeveloped. While the Tentative Parcel Map submitted by the applicant indicates that the detached garage that is situated on the northern one-half of the property is slated for removal, it has actually already been demolished and removed at the time of preparation of this Initial Study. Five trees are present on this portion of the property, three of which are clustered at the front of the residence, and all of which exhibit trucks with smallish diameters. The undeveloped (southern) portion of the property is covered mainly in graSs with no significant trees or other natural resources. The two mature oak trees and five pear trees that are shown on the Tentative Parcel Map are not actually present on the property, having previously been removed. The lot itself is relatively fiat and level with a mild incline running in an east to west direction. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements exist along the entire street frontage of the property with two separate driveway cuts. The ddveway cut on the northern portion of the project site is located to the north of the existing residence, while the ddVeway cut on the southern portion is located at th~- property's extreme south end. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate and distinct legal parcels. Proposed Lot 1 would be an approximately 6,116 square foot parcel that exhibits a lot width of 59.45 linear feet along the Oak Street side of the property (west property line) and which narrows to 56.47 linear feet along the east property line. This proposed parcel would contain the existing single family residence referenced above. Proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot parcel that would exhibit a lot width of 60 feet along the Oak Street side of the property and which increases to 63.35 feet along the east property line. This proposed parcel would be vacant and undeveloped at the time of the successful subdivision of the property but the applicant has expressed an intent to develop this parcel with a sing!e familY residence at some point in the near future. While no plans have been submitted for staff to review, staff assumes that the residence would exhibit the characteristics of a typical single'family residence and would comply with the relevant City codes. Approval of the proposed Minor S.ubdivision would allow the two-parcel division of the subject property, while approval of both the proposed Minor Variance and Minor Subdivision Exception would allow creation of a residential parcel that has a lot width that is approximately six inches short of the minimum required bythe Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance, respectively. Accordingly, . only proposed Lot 1 would not adhere to the minimum development standards (i.e. lot width) of both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances since proposed Lot 2 complies in all respects. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: After careful review and the preparation of an Environmental Checklist (,Attachment. 1), it has been determined that the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment. However, a detailed and comprehensive mitigation program has been developed that will successfully mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. There is substantial evidence in the administrative record that supports this determination, including materials submitted by the applicant's professional consultants. Accordinqly, it has been determined that the proposed protect, as mitigated, will not violate any of the siqnificance criteria, and therefore a Mitiqated Ne,qative Declaration is appropriate for the proiect. · ,: INITIAL STUDY. of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS II I I. AESTHETICS A. Settinq: The subject property is located in an older urbanized portion of the city where no distinct aesthetic characteristics prevail and there are no scenic views or vistas. An existing older single family residence that is undergoing a renovation is situated on the subject property and is' indicative of the character of the surrounding, residential neighborhood that primarily features a mix of Iow, medium, and high density residential development. This existing residence would be located on the northernmost parcel created (proposed Lot 1). The other parcel created (proposed Lot 2) is currently vacant but will likely be developed with a single family residence in the near future. B...Significance Criteria: Aesthetic impacts would be significant if the project resulted in obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public,, damage to significant scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway, creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public, substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality Of the site and its surroundings, or generation of new sources of light or glare that adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, including any direct illumination or reflection upon adjacent property, or could be directly seen by motorists or persons residing, working or otherwise situated within sight of the project. C. Impacts: The subdivision of the subject property will create a residentially-zoned lot that cOuld be developed and the applicant has indicated a desire to construct a second single family residence on this newly-created parcel. The existing single.family residence on the northern portion of the site would be retained and while it is currently undergoing the process of a remodel / addition, only slight changes to the appearance of the fa~;ade are proposed. Its overall appearance is expected to remain essentially the same. · As a result of the proposed subdivision, a new developable lot is created in a high density residential zoning district. Within that zoning district, a single family residence is just one example of the type of structures that could be constructed within that zone. In this case, a single family residence is an allowed use and discretionary review would not be required before construction of such a residence on the parcel, if successfully subdivided, would be permitted. Indeed, the applicant's intent is to develop said lot with a single family residence at some point in the future. The 700 block of South Oak Street and particularly to the north of the subject property, on both sides of the street, is developed with predominately single-family residential.structures. The remainder of the block is developed with medium to high density residential uses and there is one large apartment complex on this block. Based on the diverse nature of the residential neighborhood with a multitude of residential uses, staff anticipates the potential future residence would be compatible with other residential buildings in the area. Accordingly, staff concludes that no mitigation measures are required for this small in-fill development to address site or building design issues. While the potential future construction of a single family residence on proposed Lot 2 is expected to include outdoor lighting as part of the development, the amount of residential lighting is not 3 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA Affachment Cf anticipated to create adverse impacts off-site. Although the applicant has not submitted drawings for the potential future residence, staff anticipates that the lighting will be residential in nature, as opposed to more intense commercial lighting in both numbers and degree. Accordingly, staff concludes that the impact of the potential future residential lighting will be minor and will not create a nuisance by shining toward the night sky or surrounding properties. D. Mitigation Measures to Off-Set Lighting Impacts: None required. E. Impact Significance After'Miticlation: N/A. il. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES A. Setting: The City of Ukiah is a small, but urbanized area, and the subject property is located in an area where medium-to-high density residential (along Oak Street) and commercial (along State Street) land uses prevail, in fact, the nearest agricultural resources are located approximately one- half mile to the east. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to agricultural resources would occur if implementation of the project caused a conversion of prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses or conflicted with lands zoned for agricultural uses or subject to the Williamson Act. C. Impacts: No impacts to agricultural resources will be caused by the project since it will not require the conversion of existing agricultural lands and is not adjacent to agricultural operations. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A !il. AIR QUALITY A. Setting - Air Basin CharaCteristics: The concentration of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the poilu(ant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and sunshine. In Ukiah, the combined effects of moderate winds, clear skies, frequent atmospheric inversions th,f~'estrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts horizontal dilution, result in a relatively high potential for air pollution. The City of Ukiah is situated in. the flat and narrow Ukiah Valley. The presence of the mountains on both the west. and east sides of the valley create the terrain that tends to restrict the horizontal eaSt- west movement of pollutants. The dominant wind direction in the Ukiah Valley is from the northwest to the southeast. Wind speeds in the central portion of the community are moderate, with wind speeds of 4 mph or less occurring over 60 percent of the time. While the potential for air pollution is high in the Ukiah Valley, measurements provided by the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District show that actual pollutant levels are relatively Iow due to the lack of upwind sources and the relatively Iow level of development in the local air basin. .. B. Significance Criteria: Air Quality Impacts would be significant if the project results in any INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49; GADEA 1 ! Affachment # /'d Sources of PM-10 include field burning, dust from unpaved roads and grading operations, combustion, and automobiles. 54 of the 58 counties in California are designated non-attainment for PM-10, which means that most of the California air basins exceed the permitted 24-hour concentration. The ARB does not require an Attainment Plan for jurisdictions that violate the PM-10 standard. Ozone is one of the most serious pollutants affecting the State, and 30 of the 58 counties are designated, non-attainment. While Mendocino County is attainment for ozone, the Ukiah (East Gobbi Street) sampling station has shown a steady increase in the annual hours of ozone levels exceeding the 40, 50, and 60 parts per billion thresholds since 1993 (see Table 2). Additionally, the 80 ppb (State standard = 90 ppb) threshold has been exceeded twice over the past 4 years. However, based upon 1993-1995 data, the ARB has assigned Ukiah an "Expected Peak Day Concentration" (EPDC) level of 74 ppb, which means that any values above 70 ppb would.be excluded from the designation process as extreme concentrations (Marceila Nystrom, ARB, personal communication, 4/24/97). Regardless of the attainment designation and the EPDC status, ozone remains as the pollutant of primary concern to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. The major sources of ozone precursors are combustion sources such as, factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels. Other State criteria pollutants measured in Mendocino County have routinely had maximum concentrations well below the applicable Federal or State standards. The only other pollutant of significant concern is Carbon MOnoxide (CO). The local threshold for point source production of CO is 550 pounds per day. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas whose primary source is automobiles. Concentrations of CO measured in Mendocino County have never exceeded State or Federal standards, and current maximum concentrations measured in Ukiah are well below the applicable standards. F. Project Characteristics in Relation to Air Quality:' The project is expected to generate typical short-term air quality impacts (PM-lO/dust) during site preparation and grading activities. In addition, some vehicle emissions will be produced from heavy equipment, and ultimately from vehicles associated with the future residential use of the proposed parcel. G. Short-term Construction Related Air Quality Impacts: Construction activities create a wide range of emissi°ns, ranging from exhaust from heavy equipment to the air-bound organic gases from solvents, insulating materials, caulking materials, and "wet" pavement. However, while these emissions may contribute to the accumulation of substances that undergo the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone, they are not regarded as significant short-term impacts. Dust generated by equipment and vehicles used in construction of the building pads and driveways would cause the most substantial short-term construction-related air quality impacts. Fugitive dust is emitted both during site preparation, grading, and construction activity and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Construction dust impacts are extremely variable, being. dependent upon wind speed, soil type, soil moisture, the type of construction activity and acreage affected by the construction activity. The highest potential for construction dust impacts typically occur during the late spring and summer, and early fall months when soils are dry. These small particulates are respirable particulates that can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease, and can alter lung function in children and the elderly when distributed in large enough INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ) ) Attachment # concentrations. It can also rise into the lower troposphere and contribute to ozone production. Based on the applicant's indication that proposed Lot 2 would be developed with a single family residence, it is estimated that approximately 6,000 square feet of earth will be exposed at some point in the process to construct building pad, driveway extension, and landscaping. This is not considered a large area that would be expected to cause potentially significant levels 'of dust (PM- 10). Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required for the potential future site preparation activities for proposed Lot 2. H. Mitigation.Measures for Dust (PM10) Control: None required. !. Impact Si_qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE A. Setting: The northern portion of the project site has been developed with a single family residence, detached garage, and access driveway for several'decades, while the southern portion is vacant and undeveloped except for a driveway cut at the extreme southern end of the project site. Five trees, each with a trunk featuring a small diameter, are situated on the northern portion of the property. Three of these trees are clustered to the west of the existing residence at the street side of the property. No significant trees or other natural features have been retained on the southern portion of the site and, in fact, this portion of the property is completely devoid of natural resources, save for grass. The two mature oak trees and five mature pear trees that are indicated on the Tentative Parcel Map are not present on the property as they were previously removed from it. B. Significance Criteria: Project impacts upon biological resources would be significant'if any of ' the following resulted: Substantial direct or indirect effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or any species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird treaty Act (e.g.burrowing owls); · Substantial effect upon sensitive natural communities identified in local/regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the agencies listed above; · Substantial effect (e.g., fill, removal, hydrologic interruption) upon Federally protected wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Substantially interfere with movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or · Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources (e.g., tree preservation policy or ordinance); 'C. Impacts: 1. Plant Life: The project site is appropriately described as an urbanized City lot. It contains five smallish trees on the northern portion of the site, with no significant trees or other natural resources on the southern portion of the site, having previously been removed. Staff notes that ? INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA i Attachment # the existing trees on the sUbject property would be located on Lot 1 after the successful subdivision of the property. Since Lot 1 is already developed with a residence, which has recently undergone a renovation, staff anticipates no impact to the trees on the property. These trees are located along the perimeter of the property and would not need to be removed to accommodate development. Staff further notes that since no significant trees or other natural resources are situated on proposed Lot 2, and accordingly, no natural resources would be removed to accommodate the building pad or driveway extension. Accordingly, based on the complete absence of any significant natural vegetation on the southern portion of the project site, staff concludes that there are no plant species on the property that are included on any' listing for endangered, threatened or sensitive species. Accordingly, no mitigation measures for tree Preservation or protection are required. 2. Mammals: The proposed two parcel division of the property and the potential future construction of a single family residence in this urbanized area will not hinder the movement of animals, nor significantly intrude on their habitat since little to no habitat exists. Therefore, it is staff's conclusion that the project would not have a significant impact on the local deer population or other mammals utilizing'the subject property. 3. Birds: The two-parcel division of the subject property would result in Lot 1, which has five smallish trees, and Lot 2, which is devoid of trees. The subdivision itself will notimpact the trees on proposed Lot 1 since that lot.is already developed and staff concludes that itwould not cause any impacts to birds. The subdivision likewise will not cause any impacts to bird habitat in the area since there are no significant trees present on this portion of the prop,erty. Accordingly, since no trees would be removed to accommodate the building pad for the potential future residence, staff concludes that construction of a single family residence on proposed Lot 2 will not impact 'bird habitat. D. Miti_qation Measure: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: N/A. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. ,Setting: The City of Ukiah is rich in historical resources, which includes an eclectic assortment of historic homes and properties. Cultural resources are similarly abundant, and the City has provided for the preservation and enhancement of its cultural heritage. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to historic and cultural resources would occur if implementation of the project would: · Cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical or cultural resource; Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure or district that may be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register; Result in the removal or substantial exterior alteration of a building or structure so that it results in the loss of a designated county landmark in the City of Ukiah; or Resultin the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geological feature, or disturb any human remains. INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA C. Impacts: Figure V.3-DD of the Histodc and Archaeological Resources Element contained in the General Plan indicates that the subject property is not situated within an area of high cultural · resource sensitivity. These areas are generally located along streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses. In this case, the subject property is located in an urbanized area of the City and has been developed with structures for decades. Accordingly, it is concluded that the likelihood of a prehistoric site being located on the subject property is remote, and that the probability of site preparation and construction activities disturbing and significantly impacting any prehistoric .cultural resources is very Iow. No mitigation measures are required. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Miticlation: N/A. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: A. Setting: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. According to resource materials maintained by the Ukiah Planning Department, the projected maximum credible earthquake along this fault would be approximately 7.4 magnitude on the Richter scale. According to the Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County Southwestern Part published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the subject property is underlain by "urban land" that includes native soils mixed with non-native fill materials. Approximately 60 percent of this soil classification consists of areas that are covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings or other impervious surfaces and approximately 30 percent consists of open areas that have been altered by cutting and filling or grading operations. Currently, the soils on the northern portion of the site are largely covered with a concrete driveway and building foundation for the residence thereon, while the southern portion, which is vacant, is covered with grasses. B. Significance Criteria: A significant geologic impact would occur if a project exposed people or structures to major geologic features that pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life, or hazards such as earthquake damage (rup..ture, groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides), slope and/Or foundation instability, soil erosion, soil instability, or other problems of a geologic nature that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety design techniques. C. Impacts: The subject property is not situated on or near an Alquist-Priolo fault zone and has no known slope and/or foundation instability, soil instability, or other geologic hazards. In fact, it is staff's opinion that the primary impacts to soils on the site wil.I result from minor grading and site preparation activities as well as the eventual covering over of open lands and soils with a building foundation and paved surfaces. The existing manmade structure and paved areas on the subject property cover just a fraction of its overall size, which staff approximates is no more than 25 percent coverage. The subdivision of the subject property would create proposed Lot 2, which could be developed in the future and the applicant has indicated a desire to construct a single family residence thereon. The potential residencewill increase the developed portion of the project site and the amount of soils affected by the development. However, given the small scale of the potential future development with a Iow density residential structure that would be required to be built within the setback lines for the parCel, INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA large pervious open areas will remain. During the period of construction for the potential single family residence on proposed Lot 2, it is possible that some soil .erosion and/or loss of topsoil could increase on the site, if soils are left exposed to winds or storm waters for any substantial period of time. Staff anticipates that such soil- related impacts would be minor in nature given the small size of proposed Lot 2 at approximately 6,000 square feet and the limited amount of soils that would be exposed at any one time. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si_qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS' Settinq: Ukiah is generally regarded as a healthy City with relatively clean air and water. While there are some known toxic "spots" resulting from the past storage of hazardous materials underground, the City is not regarded as having a highly contaminated environment. Based on field review, and the review of contaminated site listings maintained by the City, it has been determined that the project site is in a clean and healthy state and not contaminated with toxic or hazardous materials that would present a significant health hazard for occupants or other persons on the site. B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to the environment and the public associated with hazards and hazardous materials would result from a project if any of the following occurred: · Creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment by routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or from foreseeable upset and accident conditions; · Emission and/or handling of hazardous, acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school; · Location of a project on a listed hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; or · Impairment/interference with adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; C. Impacts: The project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not meet any of the cdteria listed above. Staff is, therefore, able to conclude that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact associated with hazardous materials exposure to the environment or the public. D. Mitigation Measures' None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation' N/A. Viii. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: A. Settinq: Three major creeks flow through the City on their way to the Russian River, with adjacent areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as being potentially subject to flooding events. Additionally, there are numerous low-lying areas within the 10 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR.SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ) City that are subject to short-term flooding during the winter months. Domestic water quality, as well as the quality of creek waters in the City is rated as very good, and the project site is served by an existing water supply main located in the Oak Street frontage. Water' for fire protection is also available from an existing hydrant located in the Oak Street right-of-way on the west side of Oak Street a few hundred feet south of the subject property. B. Significance Criteria: Significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would result from a project if water quality standards or waste discharge requirements' were violated; groundwater and surface water quality and quantity were substantially altered; drainage patterns were substantially altered that would increase erosion/siltation and increase surface runoff; increase runoff that would exceed capacity of existing, or planned drainage systems or add a substantial source of pollution; located on a lO0-year floodplain; or expose people to hydrological hazards such as flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami,'or mudflow. C. Impacts: Storm Drainage and Flood Hazards: The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency reveal that the subject property is situated in Flood Zone "C", which is outside the 100-year floodplain. However, staff from the Department of Public Works/Engineering expressed concern with potential storm drainage problems based on the topography of the parcel and the fact that there is a slight decline running in a west to east direction that carries water away from the City's storm drainage.system located at the street. Future development on proposed Lot 2 will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on an otherwise undeveloped lot. The concern is not with the amount of storm water runoff that would result from the construction of a residence but the routing of that water to the public storm drainage system, rather than onto abutting private property. Accordingly, staff will require that the drainage that results from the potential future development of propOsed Lot 2 be addressed by placing a note on Parcel Map. The note shall indicate that prior to the development of Lot 2, the owner shall submit a development- related drainage plan to the City Engineer for review, which must be approved prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the property. Staff concludeSthat potentially significant storm drainage or flood hazards effects will be successfully mitigated with the recommended mitigation measure, below. Water Quality Standards: Domestic water is available for the proposed project through the public City water System that runs in the Oak Street right-of-way and staff of the Water and Sewer Department indicated that the proposed subdivision and the potential future development of a single family residence thereon could be served with only minor extensions of the existing water system. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the proposed subdivision would cause a violation of any water quality standard, or have an adverse impact on the domestic water quality of future owners of the proposed parcels. Groundwater Supply and Recharge: The northern portion of the property is developed with a residence and the surface runoff on this portion of the project site is directed to the City's storm drainage system. The southern portion of the site is vacant and undeveloped with storm water generally permeating directty into the soil. While the. percentage of impervious surfaces on the subject property would increase as a result of the subdivision and the potential future construction of a single family residence on proposed Lot 2, staff anticipates that significan.t,~mpaved areas would remain based on the minimum setbacks that are required and the resultant open space. Accordingly, staff concludes that the subdivision of the property and the potential future construction of a residence would not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater supplies or the ability for the water table to recharge. INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA Wastewater: The subdivision of the property into two parcels makes possible future development on the vacant parcel. The potential future .single family residence that could be constructed on proposed Lot 2 would be connected to the City sewer system that runs along the Oak Street right-of- way. While the city sewer system is nearing capacity, it is anticipated that a sufficient number of hookups to the system will be available to serve the additional potential residential unit that results from the subdivision. D. Miti_clation Measures for Storm Drainaqe Detention , The storm water drainage that results from development of Lot 2 shall be addressed by the. future owner of Lot 2 before construction is permitted on that parcel. A note shall be added to the Parcel Map that states that the owner of Lot 2 shall submit a storm drainage plan to the City Engineer for review and which must be approved prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The note ptaced on the Parcel Map advising any future owner of Lot 2 that a storm drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer will successfully reduce all potential storm drainage related impacts to levels of insignificance. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: A. Settinq: The City of Ukiah is a compact urban environment, and functions as the County seat for Mendocino County. Commercial, residential, and industrial land uses are planned for specific areas, as set forth in the 1995 Ukiah General Plan, with allowed and permitted land uses defined through distinct zoning'districts that are outlined in the Ukiah Municipal Code. In this'case, the subject property is located within the R-3 (High Density Residential) Zoning District. The. proposed two parcel division of the property is Subject to the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the regulations that apply to residentially used parcels, whereas the potential future development of a single family residence on Lot 2 would be subject to the Zoning Ordinance, which characterizes such uses as allowed. B. Significance Criteria: Significant land use impacts would occur if the project substantially conflicted with established uses, disrupted or divided an established .community, or resulted in a substantial alteration to present or planned land uses. Proposed project consistency with the Ukiah General Plan and zoning and any other applicable environmental plans and policies is also evaluated in making a determination about potential land use impacts. C. Impacts: The proposed subdivision and the potential future development of a single family residence thereon is not expected to cause any significant adverse conflicts with the established single family land use on the site. Nor will the project result in disruptions or divisions to the surrounding residential land uses, including Iow, medium, and high density residential. This potential residential infill development will cause incremental increases to existing traffic levels and the ambient noise of the neighborhood, but the levels associated with single family development are expected to be minimal and there are no facts to suggest that the project could otherwise cause significant adverse impacts. General Plan Compatibility: Staff also notes that the Ukiah General Plan designates the subject. area for high density residential land uses, within which single family residential uses are considered allowed uses. In this case, the northern portion of the project site is developed with a single family INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ) residential land use, and the development of an' additional single family residence' on the southern portion of the site is consistent with the existing land use since it complies with the General Plan and the requirements for new construction. Zoning Ordinance Compatibility: The proposed development is generally consistent with the development standards for the R-3 Zoning District, save for the fact that one of the two parcels created would have an insufficient lot width. The R-3 standards provide that the minimum width of an interior lot is 60 feet. In this case, one of the two parcels created would adhere to this minimum standard. The other parcel at 59.45 linear feet, however, is less than six inches short of the minimum lot width mandated by the Code and is the reason a variance from the Zoning Code is required. Staff referenced the Assessor's Parcel (AP) Map book for the 700 block of Oak Street to identify the character of.the neighborhood and whether surrounding properties exhibited reduced lot widths. While the dimensions printed in the AP book cannot be considered entirely accurate, they are generally representativ~ of the parcel sizes and widths. The subject property is a case in point because the AP book indicates that it is 120 feet wide, when in actuality it is only 119.45 feet wide. The AP book further indicates that a lot with a 50 foot width is located immediately adjacent to the subject property to the south, with a lot with a 60 foot width immediately to the north. Additionally, of the three properties situated directly across Oak Street to the west, two are shown as having 50 foot lot widths, while the third is shown as having a 55 foot lot width. AS earlier noted, approval of the proposed subdivision would result in proposed Lot 1 having a lot width of 59.45 feet and proposed Lot 2 having a lot width of 60 feet. The existing single family residence would sit upon Lot 1 parcel and the proposed property lines have been drawn so that the minimum setbacks around all sides of the existinc3 residence would be maintained. The vacant and undeveloped parcel (Lot 2) would have a width of 60 feet, which should pose no constraints to the potential future development of that parcel since it complies in all respects to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Given the above facts (that the amount of relief sough is very minor, that the neighborhood developed with lots exhibiting widths less than 60 feet, and that the developable lot created would meet the minimum lot width requirement), staff concludes that the approval of a subdivision, whereby a 60 foot wide lot and a 59.45 foot wide lot are created, would not cause significant adverse impacts to the established land uses on or around the subject property. Subdivision Ordinance Compatibility: The Subdivision Ordinance classifies residential use subdivisions of this sort as Type I. The Subdivision Ordinance further provides that ali lots in Type i subdivisions must have a minimum frontage/lot width of 60 feet and is the reason an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance is required.' Staff notes that the exception from the Subdivision Ordinance and the variance from the Zoning Ordinance address the same issue: reduction in the minimum lot width requirement. Since this issue was discussed in detail in the section entitled, Zoning Ordinance Compatibility, staff references that section and will not discuss it further here. Staff's conclusion stands that the proposed subdivision and the potential future development of a single family residence thereon will not cause significant adverse impacts to established land uses in the neighborhood. D. Mitigation Measure: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A 13 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA i. NATURAL RESOURCES: Setting: The subject property has been developed with a residential land use for decades and is not recognized for existing valuable natural resources. In fact, the only trees that remain on the property are five trees that have trunks with rather smallish diameters. The potential future development of proposed Lot 2 will not result in the removal of any mature established vegetation since it has already been removed from the site. Staff anticipates the reintroduction of vegetation when the parcel is landscaped following construction ora residence. No significant wildlife or scenic corridors will be disturbed. Construction materials derived from natural resources off-site would be used to construct the potential future residence on Lot 2. A. Significance Criteria: Impacts to natural resources would be substantial if the proposed project resulted in the loss of significant or locally important materials such as minerals, gravel, and sand. B. Impacts: The subdivision itself will not, but the potential future'development of a residence on · one of the parcels created would, use sand, gravel, rock, wood, concrete, and other naturally occurring building materials that are readily available in the Ukiah Valley. These would not be extracted from the project site and it is'not anticipated the potential development of a typical single family residence would demand excessive amounts of these materials or cause a direct increase in mining activities, nor would it disrupt any natural habitat or migration corridors. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed, project would not have a significant adverse imPact on natural resources. C. Mitigation Measures: None required. D. Impact Significance After Mitigation: N/A. Xl. NOISE: A. Setting: The subject property is located in a densely developed area of the urban landscape that has the typical background noise sources that are typical and expected in an urban environment, including, automobile and truck traffic, collections of human voices, street working crews and heavy equipment, etc. B. Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant noise impact if it exposes people to or generates noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise Ordinance; causes a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise.levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or causes a substantial temporary or.periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project. C. Impacts: .The Ukiah General Plan iden'tifies the significant noise sources in the City as transportation noise coming from major roadways, railroad operations, industrial plants, and airports. The focus of the Noise Element in the General Plan is to protect the noise,sensitive land uses from transportation, industrial, railroad, and airport noise through the establishment of noise contours around these noise sources in the community, where typical noise can exceed the defined threshold · of 60 dB (decibels). The City Noise Ordinance limits the maximum level of noise that can emanate from residential units to 40 decibels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; 50 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and 45 decibels from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the potential future INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA construction of a single family residence on proposed Lot 2 will cause these noise levels to be exceeded regularly or significantly, and no specific mitigation measures' will be required. · Short-term noise impactS from machinery and general construction activities will occur during the actual construction of the potential future single family residence, but these impacts are not expected to reach hazardous levels since the Noise Ordinance prohibits work before 7:00 a.m. D. Miti.qation Measure: N/A E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A VII: POPULATION AND HOUSING: A. Setting: The 2000 census indicates'that the popUlation of Ukiah is 15,597 persons, with a slow and stable growth rate. The population has not changed much in the past several years, and it has only been very recently that it appears to be noticeably increasing. The 1995 General Plan projected a population of 17,291 for the year 2000, which is 1694 more than the current population. B. Significance Criteria: Population and housing impacts would be significant if the project induced substantial direct or indirect (e.g., road extensions) population growth in an area and displaced substantial numbers of existing houses and/or substantial numbers of people, thus requiring replacement housing elsewhere. . . C. Impacts: The proposed project would provide additional housing stock to the Ukiah Valley, albeit only one unit, and therefore would not have an adverse impact on housing. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si_clnificance After Mitiqation: N/A Xill. PUBLIC SERVICES: A. Setting: The City of Ukiah is a small, but urbanized, area with a full complement of public services that include police and fire services, public schools, public works and utilities, and emergency services. B. Significance Criteria: Impacts to public services would be significant if the project resulted in adverse physical impacts upon capacity that would lead to construction of new public facilities or substantial alteration to existing governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service levels or performance levels. C. Impacts: Staff reviewed the proposed project with the City Police, Parks, Utilities, and Fire Departments, as well as with the Ukiah Unified School District. City Police Department: Discussions with the City Police Department reveal that the proposed subdivision and potential future construction of a single family residence will not result in the need for additional police officers, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to serve the future residents of the residence. " 'l 5 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA City Community Services Department: Discussions with the City Community Services Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for additional staff or park facilities, and will not have a substantial affect on their ability to maintain the current City-owned park facilities. City Utilities Department: 'Discussions with the City Utilities Department reveal that the proposed project will not result in the need for new or expanded electrical generation sources, nor will it cause the need for additional staff to maintain the current City-owned electric service facilities. The amount of electricity needed by the potential future residence is not substantial, and is available from current generation, capacity. The City's sewage treatment plant is reaching capacity, but Utilities Department staff has · indicated that it .anticipates hookups will be available for the additional unit at the time of construction, and this project alone does not have a significant impact on the capacity of the system. City Fire Department: The City Fire Marshal has indicated that the proposed project will have no adverse impacts on the Fire Department's ability to provide adequate fire protection to the potential future residence, and therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Ukiah Unified School District: Discussions with the Ukiah Unified School District reveal that it has the basic capacity to house and educate the minimal number of potential students generated by the potential future residence. The owner of proposed Lot 2 would be required to pay the adopted school district developer mitigation fee that is intended to offset the cumulative impact contribution to the district from all development projects. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Si.qnificance After Mitiqation: N/A XiV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION: A. Setting: Ukiah is a rural city that is not experiencing significant population growth. However, as the government and commercial center for Mendocino County, the City has been growing in terms of commercial development. This has increased traffic and its corresponding delays at intersections, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. While traffic impacts are somewhat subjective in nature, recent traffic studies show that the delays at some. key intersecti°ns have substantially increased in the past several years, B. Significance Criteria: According to the Ukiah General Plan Circulation Element, the minimum acceptable level of service (LOS)is LOS "D." Other criteria include whether the projectwould have substantial effects upon air traffic patterns; whether the project would increase traffic hazards due to design features; whether the project has inadequate emergency access; whether the project has inadequate parking capacity; and whether the project would create conflicts with adopted policies, programs and plans for alternative transportation. C. Impacts.: Subdivision of the subject property and the potential future construction of a single family residence thereon is expected to generate approximately 10 additional vehicle trips per day from the project site in. and around the vicinity of Oak Street. Department of Public Works staff indicated that this increase is considered insignificant because the street is designed to carry a far greater number of vehicles. Furthermore, staff indicated that the projected 10 additional trips per 3_6 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05.49: GADEA Attachmont # /'J'" [~ day would not erode the Level of Service to a level "D" or worse. Accordingly, it is concluded that the subdivision of the'subject property and the potential future construction of a residence thereon would not have a significant impact on Iocai traffic and circulation patterns. D. Mitigation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: N/A XV. .UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS A. Setting: Energy resources are readily available to the citizens of Ukiah. These include electricity, natural gas, propane, and alternative sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric. B. Significance Criteria: A project will typically have a significant impact if it causes the use of fuel or energy in a wasteful manner, or encourages activities that result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy. C. Impacts: The proposed subdiviSion and the potential future development of a single family residence will use fuels and energy, but the precise amounts that would be used cannot be determined because the length of use of certain heavy equipment is unknown. However, based on the scope of the project as a single family residence, there is no reason to believe that a significant amount of energy will be used during construction activities or the future use of the newly constructed residence. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to speculate that the construction crews and/or future residents would waste energy or fuels. Accordingly, staff is able to conclude that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on energy resources. D. Miti,qation Measures: None required. E. Impact Significance After Mitiqation: N/A XVl. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING' AB 3180 requires all public agencies to adopt a monitoring and reporting program whenever they adopt an EIR or "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for. this Mitigated Negative Declaration require the applicants to incorporate or comply with the important Mitigation Measures listed in Table 1, below. Table 1 MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM For MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ' MITIGATION MEASURES MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY HOW AND WHEN VERIFICATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY 1'7 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA Hydrology and Water Quality Applicants with Staff oversight and Approval Inclusion of a note on the Parcel Map notifying future owners that a storm drainage plan must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to pulling a grading or building permit. Planning Department staff Applicants XVll. MANDATORY' FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: A. Potential to Degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populatiOn to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate impoKant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO X , , ,. B. Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES NO X C. Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource.is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES NO X O.. Substantially Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO .X XVlll. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this Initial Study:. 3_8 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05.44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05.49: GADEA Attachment# ! find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. × ! find that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation mea'sures described within the Initial Study will be incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~/ P.lanninq Director/Environmental Coordinator Title .~. I find that the,~roposed ~~.dr me ,and IRO project MAY have a significant adverse impact on the ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required. Charles Stump. Print Name March 20, 2006 Date 19 INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA . . , . , , 10.' Attachment RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995 The Linkaqe Between Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1993. The Land Use - Air Quality Linka.qe: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1997. Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Mobile Source Er~issions: 'An Indirect Source Research Proiect, State Air Resources Board, 1995. A Source of Air Quality Conditions Including Emissions InventorY, Ozone Formation, PM1.0 Generation, and Mitigation Measures for Mendocino County, CA. 'Sonoma Technologies, Inc., November, 1998. Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part. and Trinity Cou .n. ty, Southwestern Part,' California, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, January, 1991. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975).' Hydrology Study- Apple Avenue Proiects, Water Resources Consulting Services, August, 2004 Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Repo~, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996. Correspondence received from the City Fire Department regarding fire protection service Correspondence/discussions with the City staff and Agency representatives: a. Chuck Yates, Fire Marshal b. Liz Kirkley, Electrical Distribution Engineer c. Rich. Sands, Utility Department Technician d. Tim Eriksen, City'Engineer/Director of Public Works ATTACH M ENTS: 1. Environmental Checklist 2. Tentative Parcel. Map 2O INITIAL STUDY of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 05-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA MINOR SUBDIVISION 05-44; MINOR VARIANCE 050-48; MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION 05-49: GADEA ENVIRONMENTAL'ISSUES CHECKLIST Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Siqnificant Unless Si_anificant Impact Impact Mitiqation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS - Would the proiect;. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on an officially X designated scenic vista? b} Substantially damage scenic resources,. including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state. scenic hi.qhway? , c) Substantially conflict with the architecture of the X surroundings built environment? ,., d) Create a new source of substantial light or .dare would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area'?.. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES' in determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California A.qricultura.! Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the proiect:. .a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide tmportance (Farmland) as shown on' the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the.. California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existin.q zoning for a.qricultural use, X or a Williamson Act contract? c) InVolve other changes .in the existing. environment which, due to their location or nature. X Could result in conversion of Farmland, to non.-. a.qricdtural use? Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea Potentially Potentially Si.qnificant Less Tha..n.. No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Sicnificant Unless, Si.qnificant Impact Impact Mitigation, Impact. Incorporated, II!.AIR QUALITY, Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality mana.qement or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the.proiect: a/ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the. applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existin.q or proiected air quality X violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable ne..t X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Proiect region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (includin.q releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)~ d~) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e} Create obiectionable, odors 'affecting a X substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proiect_'. ~} Have a substantial adverse effect, eithe~ directly or throu,qh habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status X ~pecies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b} Have a substantial adverse impact on any. riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, X regulations or. by the California Department of :ish , !and Game or 'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I t Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea : Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than. N._9o ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant, ~ Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporate,d, clHave a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.} through direct X removal, fillin.q, hydrological interruption, or other, means? d~lnterfere substantially with the movement of any. native resident or migratory fish or wildlife .species. or with established native resident or migratory Wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursew sites? X elConflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?. X f} Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, natural Community X Conservation Plan, or the' approved local, regiOnal, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES' 'Would the proiect: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in th~ significance of a historical resource as defined i.n. X Section 15064.5~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the s_ignificance of an archaeolo.qica[ resource pursuant X to Section 15064.57 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unicue paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X feature? d) Disturb any human remains including those X interred outside of formal cemeteries'?.. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potenti'al substantial adverse effects, including the risk of · loss, iniury, or death involving: Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision E. xception 05-49: Gadea ) ) Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea Potentially Potentially Si_qnificant Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Si,q~ificant Unless Siqnificant Im3act Impact, Mitigation Impact Incorporated i.) Rupture of a knoWn earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on the other X substantial evidence of a' known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking?., X iii.) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction?. iv) Landslides?. X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?.. X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a resul.t.. of the proiect, and potential result in on-site or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence; liquefaction, or collapse? -X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creatin.q substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater. NIA disposal systems. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?. Vii. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the proiect_: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials?..' b) Create a si.qnificant haz_ard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable u ~.set X and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardou.s. or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or, X ~waste within one-quarter mile of an existinq or , proposed school~ ,. Potentially Potentially. Significant Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant, Unless Significant, Impact Impac. t. Mitigation Impact Incorporated, d} Be located on a site which is included on a list of. hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result X would it create a significant hazard to the public 0..r. the environment? e) For a proiect located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the proiect result in a. safety hazard forpeople residing or working in the proiect area.. f} For a proiect within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the proiect result in a safety hazard N/A for people residing or working in the proiected area? gllmpair implementation of or physically interfere. with an adopted emergency response plan .or. emergency evacuation plan? ' X · hl Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, iniurv or death involving wildland fires, includin.q X where wildlands are adiacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X dischar.qe requirements?. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechar.qe such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer 'volume or a lowering of the tocal groundwater table X lever (e..q., the production rate of pre-existing ~earby wells would drop to a level which Would not support existing land uses or planned' uses fp.r which permits have been .qranted)? c) Substantially alter the existin.q drainage pattern of the site or area, includin.q throu.qh the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which X Would result in 'substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? j Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Nc) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact, Incorporated d) Substantially alter the existing draina.qe pattern. of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially, X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner' that would result in flooding on-site or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existin.q or planned X stormwater draina.qe systems or provide substantial. additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially de.qrade Water quality?. X .q)Place housin.q within a 100-year floodplain as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?. X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? !)Expose people or structures to a si.qnificant risk of loss, iniury or death involvin,q floodin.q, includin_q X floodin.q as a result of the failure of a levee or a dam.'?, i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X · IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the proiect: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Be inconsistent with the zonin,q classification for X the property? ., C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural, community conservation plan?. X · X. MINERAL RESOURCES' Would the proiect: _ .. . Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea ) Altachrnent # /'a/- ~ · Potentially Potentially Significant Less Th,a, .n No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Si.qnificant Unless Si.qnificant Impact Impact Miti_qation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a know mineral resource that would be of value to,the re.qion and X the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated X on a local .qeneral plan, specific plan or other land. use plan? Xl. NOISE: Woultithe project result in:. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local X general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a.qencies~.. b/ Exposure of ,persons to or generation of excessive .qroundborne vibration .qroundborne noise X levels? (cia substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the proiect vicinity above levels X existing without the project? d/ A substantial temporary or periodic increase ~n ambient noise levels in the proiebt vicinity above X levels existing without the project? e/ For a proiect located within an airport land use. plan or, where such'a plan bas not been adopted, within 2 mites, of a pubtic airport or public use X airport, would the proiect expose people residing or workin.q the project area to excessive noise levels?... f) For a proiect within the vicinity of'a private airstrip, would the project expose people residinc or N/A working in the proiect area to excessive noise levels?. XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:_ a} Induce substantial population .qroWth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposin.q new X homes and businesses/ or indirectly (for example. throu.qh extension of roads or other infrastucture/? ,, Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea Attachment # Potentially Potentially Si.qnificant Less Than N_.9 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant Unless Significant Impact Impact Miti.qation Impact Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of existin.q housin_q, necessitatin.rq the construction of replaceme.n.t. housin.q elsewhere? X C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement X housin.q elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the pro|ect: a) Result in substantial.adverse physical impacts. associated with the Provision of new or physically altered .qovernmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered ,qovemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si.qnificant X environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other. }efformance obiectives for any of the public services? b) Impact recreational facilities or require the_ construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which mi.qht have an adverse physical effect on 'the environment? XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFlC: Would the 3roiect: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial m relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the... volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at ntersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City General X Plan for desi.qnated roads? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a chan.qe in X location that results'in substantial safety risks? · cl) SubstantialiY increase hazards to a desi.cn feature such as a sharp curve or dan.qerous X intersections? , Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea ' ) t Affaohment # /'¢-' ~l ' Potentially Potentially Si.qnificant Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Si.qnifican.t, Unless Significant lmpa.ct Impact. Mitigation. Impact Incorporated,, e) Result in inadequate parkin.q capacitv? X f) Cause a safety hazard to bicycle and~~..r X pedestrian traffic? XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: WOuld the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality' Contro.! X Board?. b) Require or result in the construction of new waste ~~ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of X existin.q facilities, the construction of which could cause siqnificant environmental effects.?. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater draina.qe facilities or expansion of X existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve. the project from existing entitlements and resources,. X or are new or expanded entitlements needed2 e) Result in a determination by the 'wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the. X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existin.q commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid wast..e.. X disposal needs?. , cl~ Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Checklist Minor Subdivision 05-44; Minor Variance 05-48; Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49: Gadea · JACKS ON AND A SS 0 CIA TES LAND SURVEYORS Attachment October 24, 2005 City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Attention: Sandra Liston Re: Minor Subdivision 05-44 733 S. Oak Street Lands of Gadea Dear Sandra, Prior to the 1992 Parcel Map, Mr. Gadea's parcel was described by two separate deeds, both being 60' wide. During the course of a field survey for the Parcel Map, the dimensions were found to be defic[em by 0.55' feet in the front, and 0.18' in the rear. Our proposal would be to stay within the intent of the underlying deeds and create a new parcel to the south, holding the 60' of frontage both front and rear, staying within the area minimums of 6,000 square feet, and create only one parcel that would meet current zoning standards. The remaining lot would then be within the zoning minimum for area, however would represent the deficient dimensions as shown on the Parcel Map. We feel the existing two parcels, the southerly parcel having never been developed with any improvements, would prove intent of the underlying owners to maintain two parcels and therefore would not represent special consideration. Nor is it detrimental to the public in any way by more than conforming to other developed parcels in the neighborhood, and thus preserving a substantial right of the current property owner. Sincerely, Jackson & Associates 1055 W. College Avenue #139, Santa Rosa Ca. 95401 (707) 894-84~ email: jacksonassoc~earthlink.net STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION GADEA Minor Subdivision Exception No. 05-49 ITEM NO. 9-A Meeting Date: June 14, 2006 PROJECT SUMMARY: The property owner is proposing to divide the residential parcel located at 733 South Oak Street into two parcels, one of which would be approximately six inches short of the minimum 60-foot street frontage requirement. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is seeking an exception to the frontage requirement of the Ukiah Subdivision Ordinance. The other parcel created by the subdivision meets the minimum standards of the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC). Background: The project also required a variance from the City's zoning requirements. On April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved a Minor Variance for this project to allow the creation of a lot that is approximately six inches short of the minimum lot width prescribed in the Ukiah Zoning Ordinance. At that hearing, staff should have had the Commission rule on the variance and make a recommendation to the City Council on the subdivision exception, but failed to obtain the Commission's official and formal recommendation to the City Council on the issue of the subdivision exception and is the reason the subdivision exception is before the Commission at tonight's hearing. Please note that both the subdivision exception application, at issue here, and the variance application seek to create a lot that is six inches short of the minimum required. They do so, however, based on different code sections. The subdivision exception application seeks relief from the 60 foot street frontage requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance, while the variance application sought relief from the 60 foot lot width requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission's recommendation regarding whether or not to allow the exception is tentatively scheduled for action by the City Council on June 21, 2006. If the subdivision exception is approved by the Council, then the minor subdivision application for the actual two-parcel division of the subject property would go before the City Engineer for a public hearing scheduled for June 22, 2006. The Planning Department is recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council authorize the proposed Subdivision Exception, based on the findings included in the Recommendations and Findings section of this report. The discretionary actions associated with this project are quasi-judicial in nature; therefore each decision-maker must physically and personally visit the site prior to participating in the vote to approve, disapprove, or modify the project. PROJECT LOCATION: 733 South Oak Street (Assessor Parcel No. 002-301-45); on the east side of the street, between Mill and Gobbi Streets. PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR SUBDWISION EXCEPTION NO. 05-49: GADEA June 14, 2006 Attachment # ~'-' ~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Environmental Coordinator determined that the project is not exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Planning Department staff prepared an Initial Study. In this study, it was concluded that the two- parcel division of the subject property whereby a developable lot is created could cause significant potential adverse impacts but that these impacts could be reduced to levels of insignificance with the mitigation measure and the mitigation monitoring program included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project and attached to this Report as Attachment 4. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HDR (High Density Residential) ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 (High Density Residential) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Existing Conditions: The subject property is an approximately 12,116 square foot parallelogram-shaped parcel, the northern one-half of which is developed with a single family residence, while the southern one-half is vacant and undeveloped. The City block on which the subject property is situated is trapezoid-shaped, featuring property lines that meet at angles, rather than square corners. According to the applicant's licensed land surveyor, prior to an earlier two-parcel merger of the subject property it was described by two separate deeds, each indicating a street frontage of 60 feet (see Attachment 5). The subject property as a whole was thus assumed to have 120 feet of street frontage and it was not until the applicant's surveyor conducted a survey that it was determined that it was 0.55 feet shorter than assumed and as described in prior deeds. Please see Attachment 2 to this report for a copy of the survey of the subject property. These six inches would preclude subdivision unless the subdivision exception is ultimately approved. Proposed Conditions: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two separate and distinct legal parcels. Proposed Lot 1 would be an approximately 6,116 square foot parcel with 59.45 feet of street frontage along Oak Street. This parcel would contain the single family .residence referenced above. Proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot parcel with 60 feet of street frontage along Oak Street. This parcel would be vacant and undeveloped, but the applicant has expressed an intent to develop it with a duplex at some point in the near future. Lot 2 would meet the minimum subdivision and development standards of the UMC. Accordingly, proposed Lot 2 is not the topic of discussion of this subdivision exception application, so the discussion in this staff report is limited to the issues that surround the street frontage exception associated with proposed Lot 1. The Commission's role with regard to the exception is to recommend to the City Council that it approve or deny the exception and staff intends to take the subdivision exception to the City Council for a decision on June 21, 2006. Thereafter, the City Engineer would hear the application to allow the two-parcel division of the property. STAFF ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency: The project site is classified in the General Plan as a HDR (High Density Residential) land use and the residentially zoned parcel is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan, including Land Use Element for the HDR classification that encourages a variety of different housing options within that classification as well as the siting issues for new parcels. Consistency with Type I Subdivision Standards: The Subdivision Ordinance sets the minimum site area and frontage requirements for Type I (residentially-used) subdivisions. It provides that each interior PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR SUBDWISION EXCEPTION NO. 05-49: GADEA June 14, 2006 Attachment # ~"'~ parcel must be at least 6,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 60 feet, which is measured along the Oak Street side of the property only. Article 19 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows exceptions to subdivision standards where there are special circumstances affecting the property, where the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of petitioner, and where the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Each of the findings is discussed in more detail below. In this case, proposed Lot 1 would be an approximately 6,116 square foot lot with frontage of 59.45 feet, while proposed Lot 2 would be an approximately 6,000 square foot lot with frontage of 60 feet. Both proposed parcels meet the minimum required site area standard for interior lots, and proposed Lot 2 adheres to the minimum frontage requirement, but the frontage for proposed Lot 1 would be approximately six inches short of the minimum. See Attachment 2. Special Circumstances: In this case, special conditions apply to the subject property and the City block as a whole which support the request for relief. The City block that is bound by Mill Street on the north, State Street on the east, Gobbi Street on the south, and Oak Street on the west is an unusual trapezoid-shape, with two parallel sides, and two non-parallel sides. This configuration makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create standard rectangular-shaped parcels that are parallel to the street and exhibit square corners. The result of the configuration of the block is that all of the parcels within it are irregular-shaped. Property Right: The special condition of the shape of the property itself and the trapezoid shape of the City block in general is a constraint that would deprive this property owner of the opportunity to subdivide and develop the large parcel with an allowed use. In this case, the proposed vacant and undeveloped parcel would meet the City's minimum subdivision and development standards and future development of said parcel should not be constrained in any way. The other proposed parcel with the existing residence would be slightly substandard with regards to street frontage, but staff notes that four of the existing single family residences situated in the 700 block of South Oak Street exhibit reduced frontages in the range of 50 to 55 feet. At five to 10 feet less than the current requirement, these properties exhibit significantly greater variation from the frontage standard than the six inches requested here. Public Welfare: Lastly, approval of the requested subdivision exception as to the amount of frontage will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of which it is situated. Staff bases this conclusion on the fact the amount of relief sought is very minor (0.9 percent), that all parcels of this trapezoid-shaped City block are irregular, and that the developable lot that would be created by the future subdivision of the property meets the minimum requirements of both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, it is doubtful that the minor six inch reduction in frontage would be distinguishable to abutting property owners or to passers-by. Staff concludes that these conditions deprive the property owner of the opportunity to subdivide a 119.45 foot wide lot into two 60 foot wide lots, since one is six inches short, and staff is of the opinion that the proposed amount of street frontage is otherwise entirely consistent with other residentially-used lots in the immediate surrounding area. CONCLUSIONS: Planning staff conducted a thorough analysis of the planning-related issues associated with the requested reduction in the amount of street frontage and concluded that the approximately 59.45 wide lot is fair and reasonable since the reduced street frontage is a special circumstance affecting the property, the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR SUBDWISION EXCEPTION NO. 05-49: GADEA June 14, 2006 Attachment # ~-/~ substantial right of the owner, and the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. Staff further concludes that the proposed lots, with approval of the exception and variance to street frontage/lot width for Lot 1, are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Map Act. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS: The Planning Department's recommendation that the Commission recommend that the City Council authorize the Minor Subdivision Exception to allow a lot that is approximately six inches short of the minimum street frontage requirement of the UMC, resulting in a lot with 59.45 feet of street frontage is based, in part, on the following findings: . . . . , . . . . The residentially zoned parcels are consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah General Plan, including the Land Use Element for the HDR classification that encourages a variety of different housing options within that classification as well as the siting issues for new parcels; The proposed lot that is approximately six inches short of the minimum required is generally consistent with the use and development standards for the R-3 zoning district, including maximum height, minimum site area, density, yard setbacks, and on-site parking, and varies from these standards only with regards to the required lot width; The Planning Commission approved a variance from the R-3 zoning district standards to allow a six inch reduction in minimum required lot width. The proposed lot that is six inches short of the minimum frontage requirement is the result of the trapezoid configuration of the City block itself with property lines meeting at angles rather than square corners; The proposed lot that is six inches short of the street frontage requirement will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety, or general welfare since the existing residence located upon the lot adheres to the use and development standards for the zoning district, save for the amount of street frontage; Special circumstances affect the property, including its parallelogram shape and the trapezoid shape of the City block in general, which make creation of two lots with 60 feet of frontage out of a single large and oversized lot with 119.45 feet of frontage impossible; The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of petitioner, including the right to develop the residentially-zoned parcel with an allowed land use, because the vacant parcel that would be created would meet the minimum UMC requirements; The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which said property is situated because the amount of relief sought is very minor and virtually indistinguishable from adjoining properties, all parcels on this trapezoid-shaped City block are irregular, and the developable lot that would be created by the future subdivision of the property meets the minimum requirements of both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances; and The granting of the subdivision exception will cause no significant adverse environmental impacts that require additional analysis, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted for the project. PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR SUBDWISION EXCEPTION NO. 05-49: GADEA June 14, 2006 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. . Location Map Tentative Parcel Map Assessors Parcel Map - east side of Oak Street Mitigated Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision Exception 05-49 (included in Commissioner's packets only), Applicant-submitted letter dated October 24, 2005 This Staff Report was prepared by Sandra Liston, Associate Planner. PLANNNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION NO. 05-49: GADEA June 14, 2006 / / :: : / /' .'"i):~ .,-~ ", i ........... · , . ., :: .'", :: .. :: : , .. 101.4-4 RIM ~ I 95.43 IE 6" THRU "i '.d t 100.38 RIM i ! ,,, ~ i.~ · THRU i.~ THRU I .... 0 10 20 4( 1" = 20' GREEN <'1073 OR 275: GAS · ,'-' C. NCRE'¥E 96, PROPOSE 6,116 S¢ GADEA <2005-'19678: HOUSE PARGEL 2 EXIST. SS LAT. wL~. ,..~:'i / " '/' j /' ..., i j . ' {..~" ~74'25'00"W_.-.Z/ 60.96 ~ / / . ....... ~ ...... :~0 ~ ./ ~ ~ ................... C ~ 97 ' '~X ~LEC. ~' ~To '" '~', ,.' . ,BE RELOCA~D ';'%" r N', / ~'. , ,'h ,, /~.. ..~. 97 F;2 / ,'-... OT 1 : / / ! ~+ ,. .' ./',. ':'t i I''~''' x~ · i i .~ GARAGE (TO ~F REUOVED) ,- · ,~.~- SSMH © LEGEND PROPERTY LINES PROPOSED LOT LINE BUILDING SETBACK FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE TAGGED RCE 17796 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE FIRE HYDRANT WATERLINE WATER VALVE WATER METER GAS METER JOINT POLE OVERHEAD LINES CONCRETE ............. :< .................... FENCE S/GNA TURE REAL ES TA TE EQUITIEd° <2000-?042't> CITY" OF UKIAH PARCEL MAP MS 91-60 02, D56, P40 PARCEL 1 LANDS Of VIRGIL HERVER-MARTIN GADEA AND LINDA D. DE-GEDEA AS DESCRIBED IN DOC. NO. 2005-19678, M.C.R. 575 SPANISH CANYON DRIVE UKIAH, CA 95482 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 9b DATE: June 21, 2006 REPORT SUB.1ECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW ENTRYWAY TRELLISES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK AREAS ON PARCELS IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS). SUMMARY: Occasionally over the past several years, Staff has been asked about constructing decorative property entryway trellis within the front yard setback areas of single family residentially zoned parcels. Such trellises technically require a variance for relief from yard setback requirements, but such applications are rare. However, a quick survey of various neighborhoods, particularly the Westside, reveals many such trellises in the community. This Agenda Item is intended to propose modifying the Zoning Code to allow entryway trellises within the front yard setback areas of single family residentially zoned parcels without the need for variances. DISUCSSION: The primary issues associated with entryway trellises are public safety and aesthetics. On May 24, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed these issues, and concluded that as proposed, the Ordinance successfully addressed them. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Introduce the proposed Ordinance modifying the Zoning Code to allow entryway trellises within the front yard setback areas of single family residentially zoned parcels. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not introduce the ordinance and provide alternative direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. 3. Publicly noticed according to the Ukiah Municipal Code Ukiah Planning Commission Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Candace Horsley, City Manager Ordinance for Introduction Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission minutes, dated May 24, 2006 APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Mah~er Public Safety: Staff discussed the proposed concept of modifying the Code to allow property entryway trellises with the City Building Inspector, Public Works Director, and Fire Marshal to determine if it created any public safety issues. Based on those discussions, Staff modified the proposal to include the language not allowing trellises to block pedestrian movements or motorists' lines of sight, as well as requiring a Building Permit and possible structural calculations to ensure safety. The language also includes a provision that any proposed trellis not hinder the ability of the Fire Department from accessing the property with emergency equipment and providing emergency services. Staff and the Planning Commission were able to conclude that all public safety issues have been resolved. Aesthetics and General Plan Consistency: The Community Design Element of the General Plan calls for the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood character and architecture. Policy CD-10.1 requires decision makers to "ensure that new construction in established neighborhoods maintains or enhances existing neighborhood character." Trellises constructed at the entry walkways to properties are not a new and modern architectural feature. Many historic properties featured these elements, particularly the arched trellis planted with climbing roses, wisteria, or other flowering vines. It is Staff's opinion that these architectural features enhance the appearance of residential properties, and in many cases provide an historic flare that helps to preserve the character of the neighborhood in which they are located. Staff and the Planning Commission were able to conclude that the proposed project fulfils Community Design Policy CD-lO.1. RECOt41~IENDATZON: Conduct a public hearing and introduce the proposed Ordinance modifying the Zoning Code to allow entryway trellis within the front yard setback areas of single family residentially zoned parcels. ORDTNANCE NO. AN ORDZNANCE OF THE Ct'TY COUNCt'L OF THE CTTY OF UK]~AH AMENDI'NG SECTI'ON 9020 OF ARTI'CLE 1 OF CHAPTER 2 (ZONI'NG) OF DI'VI'SI'ON 9 OF THE UKI'AH CI'TY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to Section 9265 of the Ukiah City Code, Division 9, Chapter 2 (Zoning) is amended by revising the Required Yard Setbacks for Unique Circumstances in the R-1 (Single Family Residential Zoning Districts) as indicated on the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO The amendment to Article 1 of Chapter 2 of the Ukiah Cityl Code includes adding Number 4 to Subsection 9020(E) to allow property entryway trellises to be constructed within the front yard setback area provided certain criteria are satisfied. SECT[ON THREE This amendment to Article I of Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code is necessary to assist in the fulfillment of General Plan Policy CD-10.1, which requires decision makers to "ensure that new construction in established neighborhoods maintains or enhances existing neighborhood character." SECTION FOUR The revisions to the yard setback for unique circumstances regulations is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061, because based on the information contained in the administrative record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. SECT[ON FIVE This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION SIX This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on by the following roll call vote' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Passed and adopted on ., by the following roll call vote' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mark Ashiku, Mayor AI-I'EST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Ordinance No. Add Number 4 to Subsection 9020"E ("Yard Setbacks for Unique Circumstances" in the R1 Zoning District) to read as follows. SECTION 9020: RE(~UIRED YARD SETBACKS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT 9020 (E) Yard Setbacks for Unique Circumstances 4. Trellises: Trellises providing entry into property are allowed to be located within the front yard setback provided: a. The trellis does not exceed a maximum height of ten feet (10') b. The trellis is not more than ten feet (10~ wide c. The trellis is not located in the public-right-of way d. The trellis does not obscure or block vehicular traffic lines of sight e. The trellis does not impede or block pedestrian circulation f. The trellis does not pose a threat to the public health and safety as determined by the City Building Inspector g. The trellis does not hinder the ability of the Fire Department from accessing the property with emergency equipment and providing emergency services. h. A Building Permit is secured in accordance with the uniform building code. City of Ukiah STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON Zoning Code Amendment 06-17 Construction of Trellises in Front Yard Setbacks 1'rEM NO. 9-B Meeting Date: May 24~ 2006 PROJECT SUMMARY: Staff is recommending that language be added to the zoning code that would allow entryway Trellises to be constructed within front yard setback areas of parcels in the R- ! (Single Family Residential Districts). The purpose of the suggested new code language is to allow decorative property entryway trellises up to ten-feet in height to be constructed within a front yard setback area and/or adjacent to the sidewalk/public right-of-way without the need for a yard setback variance. BACKGROUND: Occasionally over the past several years, Staff has been asked about constructing decorative property entryway trellis within the front yard setback areas of single family residentially zoned parcels. Such trellises technically require a variance for yard setback requirements, but such applications are rare. However, a quick survey of various neighborhoods, particularly the Westside, reveals many such trellises in the community. A properly owner recently approached Staff to inquire about the requirements for erecting a front yard trellis. As a result of that conversation, and the conversations Staff has had in the past, we've decided to initiate a discussion about modifying the current regulations to allow then provided they fulfill certain criteria. Staff believes that front yard trellises can provide charm and an aesthetic quality that benefits single family residential neighborhoods, and that requiring a variance application is unreasonable and impractical. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Consider recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance modifying the Zoning Code to allow trellis construction in front yard setback areas when they conform to specific criteria. SINGLE FAML1Y RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed new Zoning Code language would apply to properties with the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District classification. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves adding subsection "E" to Section 9020 (See Attachment No. 1) to allow property entryway trellises providing that are located in the front yard setback area provided: 1. The trellis does not exceed a maximum height of ten feet 2. The trellis is not more than ten feet (:[07 wide 3. The trellis is not located in the public-right-of way 4. The trellis does not obscure or block vehicular traffic lines of sight 5. The trellis does not impede or block pedestrian circulation 6. The trellis does not pose a threat to the public health and safety as determined by the City Building l~nspector 7. The trellis does not hinder the ability of the Fire Department from accessing the property with emergency equipment and providing emergency services. . A Building Permit is secured for the construction of the trellis, if required by the City Building ]:nspector. Depending upon the height, size, and scale of the trellis, engineering calculations may be required. A new Property Entryway Trellis on West Clay Street An Older Property Entryway Trellis on Clay Street A property entryway trellis with climbing rose on Dora Street PROJECT ]:SSUES: The primary project issues include public safety, General Plan consistency, and neighborhood character. 1. Public Safety Staff discussed the proposed concept of modifying the Code to allow property entryway trellises with the City Building ]:nspector, Public Works Director, and Fire Marshal to determine if it created any public safety issues. Based on those discussions, Staff modified the proposal to include the language not allowing trellises to block pedestrian movements or motorists' lines of sight, as well as requiring a Building Permit and possible structural calculations to ensure safety. The language also includes a provision that any proposed trellis not hinder the ability of the Fire Department from accessing the property with emergency equipment and providing emergency services. Staff is able to conclude that any public safety issues have been resolved. 2. General Plan Consistency The Community Design Element of the General Plan calls for the preservation and enhancement of neighborhood character and architecture. Policy CD-10.1 requires decision makers to "ensure that new construction in established neighborhoods maintains or enhances existing neighborhood character." Trellises constructed at the entry walkways to properties are not a new and modern architectural feature. IVlany historic properties featured these elements, particularly the arched trellis planted with climbing roses, wisteria, or other flowering vines. It is Staff's opinion that these architectural features enhance the appearance of residential .properties, and in many cases provide an historic flare that helps to preserve the character of the neighborhood in which they are located. Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project fulfils Community Design Policy CD-10.1. CE(~A COI~IPLZANCE: Staff has determined that the proposed amendments will not cause adverse environmental effects and are, in fact, exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061, because based on the information contained in the administrative record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. This information includes: l! Review of the proposal by the Fire Department, Building Inspector, and Public Works Departments, who have concluded that the proposal would not create health and safety issues. Additionally, , A visual survey of the Single Family Residential (R-l) areas and where potential trellis would potentially be constructed in front of residences adjacent to sidewalks, and no sensitive environmental habitats were discovered. ATTACHI~IENTS: 1. Dral~ Ordinance Staff ~/Pylg and Commun~g~Development Zoning Code Amendment 06-17 Trellis Construction in Front Yard Setback Area ITEM N0, 10a DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GIANT REED (ARUNDO DONAX) REMOVAL AND RIPARIAN HABITAT RESTORATION IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER WATERSHED PREPARED BY THE SOTOYOME RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT; AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH CIRCUIT RIDER PRODUCTIONS INC. FOR GIANT REED REMOVAL AND HABITAT RESTORATION ON CITY PROPERTY Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., a nonprofit organization specializing in habitat restoration, has requested access to City owned property along the Russian River Watershed including the Wastewater Treatment Plant and Riverside Park in order to remove Arundo donax (giant reed or giant cane) which is a highly invasive exotic grass native to Asia. Arundo is an extremely noxious weed that forms impenetrable monocultures, uses large amount of water, degrades habitat for fish and wildlife and is highly flammable. Continued on Page #2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Certify that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the mitigated negative declaration for Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Removal and Riparian Habitat Restoration in the Russian River Watershed prepared by the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an access agreement as The project is in collaboration with the S0t0y0me and Mend0cin0 Resources Conservation Districts and is funded by a number local and state agencies, including the Califor ia State ~0netnl ~0neorvnnev, tho l~nli{0rnin Dopnrtmont 0{ I:::ieh nn~l I~nmo, ~ho Wildli{o Conservation Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board. There is no cost to the City or private property owners for the removal and restoration work. A full project description is included as Attachment #1 for Council's review. Circuit Rider Productions has provided the City with all of the necessa~ insurance documents and the City Attorney has reviewed and amended the access agreement which is included as Attachment #2. Aisc included as Attachment #3 is the negative declaration which the City Council is required to review under 14 CCR § 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council must take two actions: (1) certi~ that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the mitigated negative declaration; and, then, (2) approve the contract with Circuit Riders, as amended by the Addendum. Staff is recommending acceptance of the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the access agreement as landowner participation is essential to controlling the Arundo infestation and protecting the Russian River Watershed. Please note: Given the size of the attachments and in an effort to conserve paper, attachments for this item are available for public review with the City Clerk at the Ukiah Civic Center (300 Seminary Ave) during normal business hours. Item tOa CIR CUIT RIDER ODUCTIONS c o o o · I-IUMAIVSER VICE.OROGRAMS ' ECOLOGICAL RESTORA TIOIVSER VICES w~,.cro~nc, ot~ Giant Reed Removal an,d Habitq,t,, Restoration in the Russian River,Watershed: Proiect DeseriDQon Introduction Arundo donax (giant reed or giant cane) is a highly invasive exotic grass native to Asia. Arundo has rapidly invaded many river systems in California resulting in serious degradation of streamside habitats. Arundo grows to heights of over forty feet and forms dense monocultures up to several acres in size. This invasive plant uses large amounts of water and facilitates fires. Its invasion negatively impacts habitat for salmon and other wildlife by reducing the availability of shade and insect food sources. Arundo has infested large tracts of the Russian River watershed and its tributaries, covering an area of over 300 acres along the mainstem and in over forty tributaries. In comparison to other areas in Southern California, the Russian River infestation is in its infancy. Therefore it is crucial that the invasivc weed be controlled now. As Arundo reproduces clonally and does not produce viable seed, it can be successfully removed by starting at the top of the watershed and conducting removal in a downstream direction. Russian River Watershed Arundo Eradication Project Three organizations in the Russian River Watershed are collaborating in a project to remove Arundo from streamside areas and restore native riparian habitat. The Sotoyome and Mendocino Resource Conservation Districts are engaged in landowner outreach and community education. Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP), a nonprofit organization specializing in habitat restoration, performs mapping and GIS development, scientific research, removal and follow-up restoration. The project has received funding from many local and state agencies, including the California State Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Wildlife Conservation Board, the Sonoma County Water Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Community Foundation of Sonoma County, and the Switzer Foundation. Role of the Landowner Because much of the infestation occurs on private land, landowner participation is a key component of the project. Landowner participation is purely voluntary. Project funding covers all expenses of Arundo removal, revegetation, and monitoring. Landowner contributions in the form of providing irrigation, hand watering, or weeding of revegetation project areas are welcomed, but not required. (For example, many vineyard or orchard owners assist by installing and maintaining above-ground drip irrigation systems, or by having their work crews weed the installed plants a few times per year). FROM :C~rcuit R~dmr Productions FRX NO. :~? 838 45E~ i~pr. 25 ~ ~:I~gPM P2 Removal and revegetation plans Alter thc initial site visit, CRP will olnbernte work plans for both the removal et' tho ,4ru~do nnd the revegetntion of the site, which will he submitted to the landowner for approval. The removal plan will inelude: techniques by clump (i.e., herbicide uso, tat, ping, or hand removal), total clump area., materials needed, disposal et' biomass (t.e., burning, chipping, or removal f~om sltc) and & daicription of pz~emptive vegetation to avoid erosion during thc,,l~md'o romowJ (if~is is necessary), The reve~tntion plnn will Include: a map and chart of species nnd quantities et'plants to be used by zone, a description of hardware used to protec't the planls, and plans ~r irrigation nnd maintennnce. '11~e revegetation plnn may ncccssitnlc th~tt appropriate source material he cnllectmJ ormitu nnd propagated in the CRP Native Plants Nursery. 5. Bionmss r~moval and dispel! Once the plan~ have been approved nnd signed by the landctwner, initial lured removal ofthe,4runa~ will scheduled, which con.~i.~ ofcuttinB down and disposing of the A~mdo stalks. This ~ge is meant to remove the bulk of the biom~tss nmi to weaken the root system, and to propm'e the roots for follow.up treatmonl. Depending on tha nature of the ,4run~/~ clump and the control method m be tared, a second cutting may be necessary in the f~ll. The biomass is then chipped for use a~ n mulch, piled for burning by the landowner, or carted off~ite, u stipulated by the work plan. On sites with large-scale intbstntions, nnd with the landowner's pem~insion, this stye may include use of tho C~lifornia Comer'ration Cor~ crews, worldng under the direction of CRP supervisors. 6. Control method~ FoHowin~ initial removal, thc ,4~'mtr./o stalks will be treated with one of three methods to inhibit re~owth. These include herbicide application and tarping. Herbicide. Usually npplic, d during the second cutting in the fall, ~t ooncenm,,ted glypho.,mto formulation appropriate to the site will bc painted onto the fl'eahly cut stalks, n t~chnique which cone~ntzmes the herbicide on the target plant and eliminates the possibility of tuner1' or contamination c~f non-tm'gel plants. The timinl~ is critical to the herbicide's effectiveness, ns this is the time whcn ,'ir~ndo is transporting photosynthnte to its mots, so a maximum tmount of the chemical is absorbed. ~ollowup applications thc following summer may be needed in order to completely kill thc roo~. T_IiHlj~. In area~ where herbicide use is undesirable or innppropriate, pond liner tm-ps ate pi'scad over the cut ,4r~m/~ stalks between M~uch ~md May, after the thr~at offloodinl~ is past and tho ~rum/o.is entering its active growing season. Tnrps are .~ecurely staked to avoid disturbance, and will be removed before the rniny season if placed within flood zones. Physical root removal. Roots may be removed physically, either by removing ihem by hand or u~inl~ mnchincry, ll'roots are removed, all appropriate erosion control mensure~ (i.e. seeding, mulching, etc.) will take place I~ior to the start of the rainy season. ?; Reve~.-ta~ion After t~ la~down~ approves I~ reve~etatJon plan. it is implemented he~innin~ in ~he z'a~¥ sea, on tre~lznem of'.~m3ro ~tan~. The plan ma7 be implemented all a~ once or in phases, over two ra~n:y ~pendinB on how ~uccess~'ul the in,al treatment was and whether ~ollowup ~'eatme~t b required. ]~oJecc ~nde~ h,ve ~tabli~lmd dm projects must be monitored ¢or ten years, in order to en~ure that ez~llcal~l and mvegetation e~orts a~ successful. Each site will be monitarcd for/~rmfdo re~wth ~tmh year and retrem~ tutti] eradi~on is lull), achieved, usually ]-3 yoarm Wlmre revegel~o, has oe. cun~. either an irri~tJon s~tem will be installed in coozdin~tion wi~h the la~lowne~, or CRP will m'ra~e for hand wa~erinl~ and weed control fbi' several )'ears att~' the planting. Once the plnnts have e~t~bli.~bed t~emselve~, each reveljet~tJon Site will be meeit~md annually for reportJ~ Tmpad sims are monitored ever), two wee~ to ' ' el:~ure the ~ ~-maJn inl~CL 9619 eLL") REDWOOD HIGI PATAY · ~",R,, CA 954~2 · FAX: 707-8.3tt-4~.3 · TEL; 707.~.'~R-664 i Item 10a Attachment #2 LANDOWNER ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH CIRCUIT RIDER =='""' "~'"'"'"" ""~ This Agreement is made and becomes effective on , by and between the City of Ukiah, hereinafter called 'Landowner,' and Circuit Rider Productions inc., hereinafter called 'CRP'. The Landowner is the fee owner of, or has a beneficial interest in, certain real properties located in the Russian River watershed. Referenced land is described by the grant deed recorded on County Recorder's Office Book: 002-102-75, 180-010-10, 180-010-17, 184-100-05, 184-100-06 hereinafter called the 'Landowner's Property." PURPOSE: Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP), in collaboration with the Sotoyome and Mendocino County Resource Conservation Districts, with funding from State Coastal Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the State Water Resources Control Board (through the Sonoma County Water Agency) are implementing a watershed-wide program to remove the invasive gras~, giant reed' (Arundo donax), from the streamside areas of the Russian River watershed. Giant reed is an extremely noxious weed that forms impenetrable monocultures, uses large amounts of water, degrades habitat for fish and wildlife and is highly flammable. Because of these negative effects on natural habitats and human land uses, landowners, as well as private and public organizations are committed to removing this plant and restoring the invaded areas. PERTINENT FACTS: CRP is a California nonprofit organization existing under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and whose purposes are consistent with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code. The Landowner seeks the assistance of CRP in restoring the natural resources and enhancing habitat on the property, and CRP seeks to provide this assistance. ACCESS PERMISSION: Landowner hereby grants permission to CRP, its subcontractors, project partners, and representatives of the funding agencies, to enter onto real property owned by the Landowner to perform the Arundo removal project. Access shall be limited to those portions of the real property that must be traversed to gain access to the work site, as well as the Arundo removal work sites. Agents of the funding agencies will have access to visit the project site at reasonable intervals during the term of this agreement to determine whether the site is being restored and maintained in a manner consistent with the grant agreements. CRP, or its agents, will give reasonable actual notice prior to each access visit, and will work with the landowner to determine their preferred method of communication and notice requirements. Reasonable and actual notice may be given by mail, in person, or by telephone directed to the address and telephone number listed below. This agreement can be amended only by wdtten agreement of both parties prior to executing this agreement. LANDOWNERS USE OF THE PROPERTY: Except as provided in this paragraph, the Landowner reserves the right to use the property in any manner, provided that its use does not unreasonably interfere with CRP's project responsibilities under this agreement. During the term of this agreement, the Landowner shall use the property and habitat improvements in a manner consistent with the purposes of the grant agreement; this includes, but is not limited to, refraining from harming, damaging, removing, altering, or interfering with the removal or restoration sites. DURATION: This agreement shall take effect when fully executed, on the date signed below. The term of this agreement shall be three (3) years for implementation and maintenance and then (7) years for inspection and monitoring purposes. LIABILITIES: CRP shall be responsible for and indemnify the Landowner to the extent of liability resulting from occurrences arising out of the operations of and/or the active negligence of CRP, its employees, agents or contractors. Upon request, Landowner will be named as additional insured on CRP's general liability insurance policy and be provided certifying documentation to that effect. · ASSIGNMENT AND SURVIVAL: This Agreement shall be binding on any successors in interest to the Landowner only through the implementation of the project described herein. By signing this agreement, Landowner agrees to allow CRP access to. maintain the resulting improvements of the project for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the date of execution shown below. Landowner's name Landowner's address Property address Landowner's phone number and Alternate Phone number Landowner's signature Authorized signature, Circuit Rider Productions Date Pdnt name Title Circuit Rider Productions · 9619 Old Redwood HWY - Windsor, CA 95492 · (707) 838-6641 AMENDMENTS TO LANDO~R ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH : CIRCUIT RIDER PRODUCTIONS, INC. This agreement ("Amendment") amends the Landowner Access Agreement with Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. ("Agreement") to which it is attached. This Amendment is entered on ,2006 ("Effective Date~) between Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. ("CRP"), a California corporation in good standing, and the City of Ukiah ("Landowner"), a general law municipal corporation. . 1. PERTINENT FACTS: The following is added to the Pertinent Facts section of the Agreement: The property which CRP will access is used by Landowner for its wastewater trealment plant ("WWTP") and as a riverside park. The WWTP is the regional wastewater treatment plant for the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. The Landowner has contracted with Keiwit Construction to consm~_ct a $57 Million upgrade and expansion of its WWTP. Kewit has just commenced con--on which is projected to take two years to complete. Time is of the essence of this construction project. The riverside park is used currently as baseball fields for the South Ukiah Little League and as a BMX bicycle track by the Rusty Bowl BMX. The Landowner has leases with both organizations for portions of the riverside park area. 2. ACCESS PERMISSION: The following is added to the Access Permission section of the Agreement: CRP, its subcontractors, project partners, and representatives of the funding agencies (collectively, "CRP') understand and agree that their access to the WWTP site is subject to the following conditions: a. CRP shall not interfere with, hinder, delay or obstruct in any way Keiwit or its agents, employees, subcontractors, suppliers and representatives (collectively "Keiwit") in their performance of the construction contract with Landowner. CRP will not enter construction areas without prior notice to Keiwit and the City's Construction Manager, and then only with permission and in compliance with any instructions from Keiwit, the City's Construction Manager or Landowner. CRP will immediately comply with any insuuctions from Keiwit, the City's Construction Manager or Landowner concerning CRP a~tivities on the WWTP property. b. CRP agrees that the WWTP is critical infrasm~ for the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley which must remain secure for Homeland Security and other reasons. CRP will only enter upon WWTP property with prior notice to and permission of Landowner, and will immediately comply with any insUuctions from Landowner concerning CRP's activities on the WWTP property. c. CRP will not damage the WWTP property or any WWTP improvements located thereon. CRP agrees to pay any costs req~fired to rep~ any damage to the WWTP caused by CRP activities on WWTP pmlm~, as determln~ by Landowner. CRP agrees to indmmify Landowner for any damage or cost to Landowner caused by CRP activities on the WWTP property, to the extent such activities cause damage to or loss of WWTP property. d. CRP will not interfere with the u~e of lezzed portiom of the riverside park property by Landowner's lessees. . WI~REFORE, this Amendment is entered by the parties on the Effective Da~e. LANDO~R CRP City of Ukiah Circuit River Productions By: ATTEST: City Clerk Russian Item 10a Attachment #3 River Team Arundo Giant Reed (Arundo Habitat Russian donax) Removal and Restoration in the River Watershed Riparian Mitigated Negative Declaration Sotoyome Resource Conservation District October 2004 Russian River Team Arundo Project Russian River Team Arundo Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Removal and Riparian Habitat Restoration in the Russian River Watershed Mitigated Negative Declaration lw w 3, , CONTENTS Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Project Description 1.3 Project Components 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Background 2.1 Legal Authority 2.2 Public Review 2.3 Scope of the MND 2.4 Document Organization Project Description 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Project Objectives 3.3 Proposed Project Components and Methods 3.4 Regulatory Requirements Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 Introduction Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation October 2004 I Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 4.16 4.17 4.18 Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 5. Notice of Determination 6. References 7. Report Preparation and Glossary Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Completed Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form Methods and Mapping Maps Data Collection Forms October 2004 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 1. SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to evaluate thc potential physical environmental consequences of the proposal by the Russian River Team Arundo (RRTA). RRTA is comprised of Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP) in collaboration with the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (SRCD) and the Mendocino Resource Conservation District (MRCD). The mission of RRTA is to remove giant reed (Arundo donax) from the Russian River watershed and restore riparian habitat in invaded sites. The invasion by giant reed is contributing to the decline of Russian River riparian habitat - a critical habitat type upon which salmonids and many other wildlife species depend. The project proposes to cut the giant reed at the rootstock using hand tools and remove it from the stream zone. Mechanized equipment may be used in locations where hand removal is not possible. The remaining biomass will be removed by hand or covered with tarps or a thick pond liner for approximately 6 months in order to kill the invasive species. Biomass that cannot be tarped because of location will be painted on the stumps with glyphosate herbicide. Removal of giant reed by this method will take place in the summer and fall months when the cut and paint method has the highest Arundo mortality rate and the bird nesting season is over. Wherever possible, methods other than herbicide shall be used to eliminate giant reed. After the giant reed has been determined to be dead in an area, native plant restoration will take place. For the purpose of the project's review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (SRCD) is acting as the Lead Agency. This MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the updated State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq., California Code of Regulations) to meet the requirements for an MND. Potential environmental impacts have been identified for each environmental issue area based on the project activities for giant reed removal and native plant restoration within the Russian River watershed. RRTA has included work plans, maps, and other relevant information as identified in Section 4. Mitigation measures that address impacts are identified in this document. This MND concludes that, given the construction approach, design elements, and the mitigation measures included in this document, no significant effect on the environment would occur. 1.2 Project Description As described in Section 3 of this document, RRTA shall remove giant reed (Arundo donax) from thc Russian River watershed via above-ground biomass removal, using hand tools and a limited use of mechanized equipment. Follow-up treatments will include root removal, tarping, and/or the application of glyphosate to cut stems in order to kill the giant reed. RRTA plans to revegetate areas where giant reed is removed with locally collected native plants. October 2004 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 1.3 Project Components The Russian River basin is an approximately 1,500 square mile watershed located in Mendocino and Sonoma counties in northern California (Figure 1. Russian River Watershed Reference Map). The main stem of the river is approximately 110 miles long, flowing from its source in Potter and Redwood Valleys north of Ukiah to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean near the town of Jenner. The watershed is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with cool wet winters and hot dry summers. Much of the watershed is underlain by Franciscan formation, making it especially prone to erosion and land movement. The watershed is characterized by a diversity of plant communities, including mixed evergreen forest, oak woodland, redwood forest, Douglas fir forest, grasslands, freshwater wetlands, salt marsh, vernal pools, chaparral, riparian forests, and coastal scrub. The Russian River basin is home to three federally listed species of salmonids, including steelhead, chinook salmon and coho salmon. Historically, the Russian River watershed supported one of the largest steelhead runs in the world. All three species of salmonids have experienced significant declines in the last fifty years. RRTA proposes to sequence the removal of giant reed and follow-up restoration program from the top of the watershed downstream, since the nature of the giant reed invasion is unidirectional. RRTA would therefore prioritize the removal program in the upper reaches of the mainstem in Mendocino and northern Sonoma counties, and in the tributaries. Tributaries shall be prioritized based on the level of giant reed infestation and the ability to gain comprehensive landowner support. 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures RRTA's primary approach to implementation of the proposed project shall be avoidance of impacts. RRTA shall incorporate mitigations into the proposed project's design and construction plan to avoid or reduce possible environmental impacts to less than significant levels. RRTA's commitments include avoiding sensitive habitats (via timing of treatment or establishing a buffer zone around nest areas), removing giant reed by hand, training crews how to apply herbicide properly, checking weather reports for precipitation, installing erosion controls where needed, and revegetating areas of giant reed removal. Cumulative Impacts The environmental impacts of the proposed project would be negligible or less than significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. October 2004 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration o ~0 .~ '~. . .,..?.._ ._ ,... ._ ,-. ._ -~ ). '~ ~ ~ ~'~8~'~8 ~'~8 ~'~ $ ~'~8 ~:.~. --~ .-~ .-~ .,.E'8 E'=_ ~ E'8 ~ '~ ~ .o --, ,-, c: o o .c: ,,-' ,,= --fi = .o ~ '-,o B.~ ,-- o~ I~ o ~'- ~1 i~) c: cl. ~ .... o. E o E ,~ ,~= =,,- ._ 8 o ~'"~ ~ E ,- [~ ,- E~ m ~.m ~ ,- ._ ~ ~':.~ o -- ~' E o o .- ._o~ '1~ .o_ o 'O m ca o co - ~ ~ ~ ~[~ ~ zo Russian River Team Arundo Project 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Legal Authority CEQA requires State, regional, and local agencies, including special "Districts," to prepare an environmental review document for any discretionary action that may have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment. Under CEQA, a Lead Agency is the governmental agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project, and therefore, the principal responsibility for preparing, or causing the preparation of, CEQA-related documents. The proposed project area is located within the Russian River Watershed. The Sotoyome Resource Conservation District (SRCD) exists to assist landowners and residents in improving land stewardship through soil and water conservation, habitat restoration, and other actions. The district has jurisdiction in the northern two thirds of Sonoma County including the southern half of the Russian River Watershed. Consequently, for the purposes of CEQA, the SRCD is acting as the Lead Agency. 2.2 Public Review In accordance with CEQA, a 30-day public review period for the Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Removal and Native Plant Restoration in the Russian River Watershed Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) commenced on September 14, 2004, and concluded October 14, 2004. The Draft IS/MND was specifically distributed to involved or interested public agencies. All comments were reviewed and given due consideration. There were no substantial revisions necessary to address comments received. Copies of all comments received and the final MND are available for general public review at: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District 970 Piner Road Santa Rosa, CA 95406 This MND can also be downloaded off of the intemet at http://www.sotoyomercd.org/arundo.htm#M ND. 2.3 Scope of the MND As stated above, the SRCD completed an Initial Study that led to adoption of this MND to review the project's potential for having significant effects on the environment. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (c), the purposes of an Initial Study include: 1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration. 2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. 3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required. October 2004 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project. 5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs. 7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR couM be used with the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration): A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: 1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review wouM avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects wouM occur, and There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. As directed by the CEQA Guidelines, if an Initial Study concludes that some or all of a proposed project would result in significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then an EIR must be prepared to address the effects. However, if an Initial Study shows that a proposed action would not create a significant environmental effect, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared and circulated for public and agency review. Based on the analysis of the Initial Study, the SRCD has determined that all project-related environmental impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration meets the requirements of CEQA. The mitigation measures included in this MND are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. Mitigation measures are structured in accordance with the criteria in Section 15370 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.4 Subsequent Review of the MND October 2004 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project Supplemental environmental review of this project would only be required under CEQA if changes occurred that were outside the scope of the original project and were not covered by this MND. 2.5 Document Organization This document contains the following sections and supporting appendices: Section 1: Summary. Summarizes the project and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All impacts and mitigation measures are described in an impact summary table. Section 2: Background. Describes the legal authority of the SRCD to prepare an IS/MND, the public review process, the scope of the IS/MND, and the organization of this document. Section 3: Project Description. Provides a detailed description of the project objectives, project boundaries, and project design. Section 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Presents the environmental analysis for each issue area identified on the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form. If the proposed project is not considered to have the potential to significantly impact a given resource, a brief discussion is given of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, a discussion provides a description of potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Section 5: References. Provides a list of documents that were utilized during the preparation of the IS/MND. Section 6: Report Preparation and Glossary. Provides a list of persons involved in preparing the IS/MND and their respective roles, and a list of terms used in this MND. The following appendices contain background and technical data that were used in preparation of this MND. Appendix A. Completed Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form Appendix B. Methods of Mapping Appendix C. Maps Appendix D. Data Collection Forms Appendix E. Notice of Determination October 2004 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Introduction The Russian River watershed is an approximately 1500 square mile watershed located in Mendocino and Sonoma counties in northern California (Figure 1). For the purposes of this project, the watershed has been divided into 10 hydrological sub-areas (see Appendix C - Maps). The Russian River watershed once supported three species of salmon, coho, chinook and pink, and one of world's largest populations of steelhead trout (Steiner 1996, Nehlsen, et al. 1991). Pink salmon are now extirpated from the system, and coho, chinook and steelhead are all listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Streams in the watershed also support federally endangered populations of freshwater shrimp. Since European settlement, the Russian River has experienced significant anthropogenic disturbance (gravel mining, logging, urbanization, flood control, agricultural development), and this has resulted in severe impacts to riparian vegetation. Especially hard hit have been floodplain riparian forests - some of the most structurally and biologically diverse areas within the watershed (CRP 2001). Giant reed (Arundo donax) is recognized by resource managers throughout Califomia as a highly invasive noxious weed species with negative effects on a range of environmental features, including fisheries, wildlife habitat, water quality, and quantity. In several fiver systems, giant reed has expanded from isolated clumps in the channel to a near monoculture within a ten-year time frame. The critical state of riparian plant communities in California has provided the impetus for several removal programs in the southern part of the state. Southern California agencies are spending millions of dollars to control giant reed due to its influence on water supply, fire danger, and impacts to native riparian habitats (CRP, 2002). In 1999 and 2000, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors approved a Sonoma County Water Agency Fisheries Enhancement Program grant to Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP). The objective of these consecutive grants was to develop a comprehensive mapping and research program designed to address the extent and impacts of giant reed on the fish and wildlife values of the Russian River main stem. Additionally, the grant specified the development of estimated control costs for the eradication of giant reed from the Russian River as well as community and landowner outreach to encourage the control of giant reed on private property in the watershed (CRP, 2002). With funding from SCWA and CDFG, CRP has performed the following tasks as part of the 1999 and 2000 FEP grants and CDFG funding for tributary mapping: 1) Mapped the extent of the giant reed invasion along the main stem of the Russian River 2) Mapped the extent of the giant reed invasion along major tributaries to the Russian River 3) Evaluated the influence of giant reed on native plant communities 4) Evaluated the influence of giant reed on terrestrial insect communities 5) Documented the influence of giant reed on various attributes of the aquatic food chain, including macro-invertebrates 6) Determined effective eradication methods for giant reed in riparian areas 7) Evaluated effective revegetation techniques after removal of giant reed 8) Developed costs for eradication of giant reed along the main stem Russian River 9) Performed education and outreach and engaged landowners and community groups in voluntary giant reed removal. October 2004 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project CRP's research demonstrates that giant reed is having a very substantial effect on the native plant and animal communities of the Russian River riparian zone. If giant reed continues to spread - as it has in southern California - the impacts to the salmonid fishery and wildlife in general will be severe. CRP's research also demonstrates that giant reed, unlike plants that produce seed (such as yellow star thistle), can be effectively and rapidly controlled (K. Gaffney, personal communication). The total extent of giant reed in the Russian River main stem in 2000 was two hundred and thirty six acres, with the majority of this acreage (60%) occurring in the Alexander Valley. In 2002, forty-three tributaries were infested with giant reed, comprised of over seven hundred individual stands. Russian River Team Arundo (RRTA) has proposed to perform giant reed (Arundo donax) removal and riparian habitat restoration in the Russian River watershed. 3.2 Project Objectives The giant reed invasion is of immediate concern in the Russian River watershed. Based on information from river systems in southern California and other riparian areas throughout the world, it is clear that giant reed may be one of the most serious impacts to the remaining riparian habitat in the Russian River system, having a direct impact on the salmonid fishery. Given the fact that the Russian River watershed is home to federally listed salmonid species - steelhead trout, Coho and Chinook salmon - as well as the federally listed freshwater shrimp, it is imperative that riparian zone management in these ecosystems take into account the impacts of invasive plants. Preservation of the remaining riparian habitat, as well as restoration of fisheries resources, will be more successful, and far more cost effective, if the giant reed issue is addressed during the early phase of this invasion (CRP, 2002). Following are the primary objectives of the Russian River Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Removal and Native Plant Restoration Program: 1. Educate landowners, agencies and the community about giant reed's negative impacts on riparian ecosystems and biodiversity; 2. Prioritize giant reed removal from the top of the watershed downward, in order to most effectively utilize project funds; 3. Implement non-toxic giant reed removal on a large scale in order to reduce the amount of herbicide being used in sensitive riparian habitats; 4. Restore native riparian habitat in areas where significant amounts of giant reed are being removed; 5. Demonstrate and publicize non-toxic removal techniques so that other agencies and restoration groups may effectively use them; 6. Collaborate with existing efforts (such as EQIP, RCD programs and other public and private programs) in order to leverage funding for giant reed removal. 7. Map and monitor the progress of giant reed removal and native plant restoration. 8. Perform research on the impacts of giant reed on riparian ecosystems, and effective non-toxic control methods. October 2004 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 3.3 Proposed Project Components and Methods A. Landowner Outreach Because over 95% of the Russian River watershed is in private ownership, and the majority of the giant reed is on private lands, effective removal of giant reed and restoration of riparian areas will require landowner outreach and education about the importance of giant reed removal. RRTA proposes to contact landowners through a variety of newsletter articles, speaking engagements, informational brochures and bulletins. Cooperating groups and organizations have included in the past, and are expected to include in the future: Sonoma County Grape Growers Sonoma County Farm Bureau Sonoma County Water Agency Mendocino County Farm Bureau Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Community Alliance with Family Farmers Alexander Valley Winegrowers UC Cooperative Extension - both counties Agricultural Commissioners Office - both counties Miscellaneous landowner and agricultural groups. Informational brochures about the environmental problems associated with giant reed will be developed, and will include discussions of the extent of the invasion and the effects on biological diversity, salmonids, fire danger and water quality/quantity. These brochures will be focused on the giant reed invasion in the Russian River watershed. Informational bulletins about appropriate control methods and follow-up riparian restoration techniques will be developed and distributed to landowners engaged in giant reed removal and restoration of invaded areas. B. Workshops and Community Education In order to ensure continued support for the removal of giant reed and restoration of invaded habitats, public agencies and the community must be educated about the environmental impacts of giant reed on the Russian River ecosystem. RRTA will develop a series of multi-media presentations about the extent of the giant reed invasion, and its impact on coastal stream systems - specifically the Russian River. These presentations will be given to a variety of public agencies such as California Department of Fish and Game, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, RCD boards, the board of supervisors for both counties, city councils in both counties, local environmental and community education groups. A website will be developed that is focused on the invasion in the Russian River watershed, and will contain information about giant reed impacts, control methods and follow-up restoration methods. The website will link to other internet resources such as Team Arundo and California Exotic Pest Plant Council websites. Informational brochures and the website address will be provided at all public presentations. October 2004 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project C. Site Prioritization and Planning CRP's comprehensive Giant Reed GIS will be used to prioritize sites for removal, identify and contact landowners, and to develop site-specific designs for removal and follow-up restoration. Sites will be prioritized from the top of the watershed downward - with the upper reaches of the main stem and the tributaries receiving first priority. For each site, a map will be developed that shows the infestation, the landowner name, the proposed treatment and any follow-up restoration specifications. These maps will be provided to the landowner and will provide the basis for any permit applications required. Finally, all data developed for the site-specific plans will be incorporated into the GIS for use in monitoring and maintenance. RRTA will attempt to obtain comprehensive permits for each sub-regional zone. D. Giant Reed Removal RRTA will remove giant reed in all riparian areas of the main stem and tributaries to the Russian River. Table 3.3.1. Significant tributaries of the Russian River that have been surveyed and found to have giant reed (Arundo donax) infestations (highlighted). Data were derived from USGS Orthoquadrangles [twenaocmo count),] ana unno noto a n ~onoma coun Adobe Creek Franchi Creek, La I Alder Creek Franks Canyon I [Osborne Creek Anchor Creek Franz CreekI [Palmer Cr~k Angel Creek Frasier Creek Anna Belcher Creek Frazier Gulch [Pechaco Creek Freezeout Creek [Pena Creek~ Atascadero Creek Galloway Creek ~ Picnic Creek ~:~. George Young Creek Bakers Creek Geyser Canyon Pieta Creek Barnes Creek Gibson Creek IPole Mountain Creek ~m~:~:~: Gill Creek Bear Canyon Gilliam Creek Bear Creek ~ Bearpen Creek Gossage Creek [Powerhouse Canal Bevans Creek Grab Creek [Press Creek Bidwell Creek Grape Creek IPurrington Creek Big oat Creek Grapevine Creek [RaH Creek ~:~ IRancheria Creek ~~}~ Gravelly Springs Creek Black Rock Creek ~'~ray Creek [Red Slide Creek Black Sulfur Creek~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ] [Redwood Canyon Blucher Creek [ ~~ ~~,~ ]~ [Redwood Creek Blue Jay Creek Hensley Creek I IRedwood Log Creek October 2004 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration um Creek s Creek Bond Creek Boulder Creek ~er Creek ~es Creek Creek Creek ~e Creek Barn Gulch Creek ht Creek Creek Creek Branch Creek Cobb Creek Cold Creek Coldwater Can' Coldwater Gulch Coleman Creek Creek Flood Co Conshea Creek Consolli Gulch Coon Creek Creek Corral Creek Crane Creek Crawford Creek Crawford Gulch Crocker Creek Creek Dead Horse Cam Deadhorse Creek Devil Creek Hidden Vall, Hinebau h Creek Hoil Creek s Creek Creek Hummingbird Creek Creek Creek ram Creek Smith Creek Creek Gulch Gulch Gordon Creek Creek Creek Creek Kidd Creek Kohute Gulch una de Santa Rosa Creek Little Briggs Creek Little Rancheria Cree Little Cre Little Sulphur Creek Little Warm S Livereau Creek Lovers Gulch Creek Creek Martin Creek Russian River Team Arundo Project Rincon Creek Creek Russian Gulch Saint Elmo Creek Salt Creek Creek Sawmill Gulch Schoolhouse Creek Schoolhouse Gulch Scotts Creek Seven Oaks Creek Seward Creek Creek Sheldon Creek Sheridan Gulch Skunk Creek Snow Creek Soda Creek South Branch Porterfield South Branch Robinson South Fork Matanzas C ~k uaw Creek Creek Creek Sweetwater Creek Creek Timber Gulch Creek Creek rrone Gulch Van Buren Creek Creek October 2004 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project Caw/on Creek Creek Creek Creek Austin Creek Branch Russian G Canal Edwards Creek e Creek Elkhorn Creek Fall Creek Felta Creek Fisher Creek Five Creek Foote Creek Matanzas Creek McChristian Creek McDonald Creek McDonnell Creek ell Creek Mesa Grande Gulch Creek Wallace Creek Creek S ' S Washoe Creek Weeks Creek Branch Fife Cree Branch Russian G Creek Slough Middle Branch Russian Creek Fork Feliz Creek Cattle Creek Creek s Creek Mill Stream Creek Mission Creek Willow Springs Creek Creek Wine Creek Creek Creek Branch Little S North Fork Feliz Creek ht Creek acket Creek Creek North Fork Lancel Creek Creek Creek Tributaries will be prioritized based on the level of infestation and the ability to gain comprehensive landowner support. Other tributaries will be included as data becomes available. Giant reed removal will be a two-phased process. First, each infestation will be surveyed for wildlife and plant species. Biomass, area and density of the giant reed infestation will be documented and an assessment of surrounding vegetation will be performed (see Appendix D for data collection form). These data will be incorporated into the GIS, and used for the development of site-specific treatment and restoration plans, and for long-term data collection and monitoring. After the survey is complete, giant reed biomass will be removed and transported out of the floodway for composting or other on-site reuse after it has dried and is dead (i.e. staking for agriculture). After biomass has been removed, one of three treatments will be used to eradicate the giant reed - tarping, painting with herbicide, or root removal. Tarping will entail the secure placement of one to two black tarps or pond liners over each clump of giant reed to prevent the plant from photosynthesizing. Tarps will be left in place a maximum of five to six months, starting in May. RRTA will ensure that all giant reed is dead before removing the tarps. Whenever possible, tarps will be re-used. RRTA will ensure that tarps are placed in such a way that they are not subject to flood removal and transport into the stream. October 2004 ;17 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project Root removal will entail the complete eradication of the giant reed root and rhizome - either by hand or with .mechanized equipment. This approach is only appropriate for relatively new or small infestations, or clumps of giant reed on open gravel bars. All removed biomass will be composted outside of the floodway (see Section 3.3.1 for more information on Proposed Project Activities and Techniques). E. Riparian Restoration Riparian restoration will take place only in floodplain areas, as active channel areas tend to regenerate within a few years on their own. In areas where bank erosion due to giant reed removal may be a concern, willow sprigging or willow mattresses may be employed. Revegetation will take place after all giant reed has been eradicated. Revegetation will include installation of appropriate native plants based on the species composition and density of the site. A detailed plan will be developed for each site which outlines the number of species, planting locations, timing of planting, container size and other details relevant to project success. Plants will be propagated from seed and cuttings collected from within five miles of the project site to ensure genetic integrity of the restored habitat. F. Monitoring and Maintenance As part of their contribution to the project, the landowners would agree to maintain the project in perpetuity. Maintenance would include checking for re-invasion of giant reed, controlling any new infestations of giant reed, and ensuring that the revegetation project maintains a survival rate of 70%. RRTA will monitor each of the projects after one year and three years to ensure that the sites remain free of giant reed and that the revegetation project has met its success criteria. If the success criteria have not been met, RRTA will work with the landowner to bring the project up to target goals. 3.3.1 Proposed Project Activities and Techniques The following techniques would be used to remove giant reed from the riparian corridors in the Russian River watershed, and to perform follow-up native plant revegetation in infested areas. (a) Phase I: Above-ground Biomass Removal (all seasons) In all cases, the first phase of the project requires the removal of all above-ground giant reed biomass, to within 12 inches of the ground. Timing of above-ground biomass removal is dependent upon the Phase II treatment being applied (see below for detailed descriptions of Phase II treatments). If the tarping method is being used, biomass removal would take place in the spring and summer. If the herbicide method is being used, biomass removal would take place between July and October. If the root removal method is being used, biomass removal could take place at any time of the year, provided it does not create any environmental impact such as increased sedimentation, or harassment of sensitive wildlife species. Giant reed canes would be removed by hand with loppers or other cutting tools. All removed canes would be moved out of the floodway to a staging area, so that no cut canes could be transported into the riparian corridor during flood events, and re-sprout there. Canes placed in the staging area would be prevented from rooting by: a) placing a tarp or other root-impermeable lining under the canes, b) placing the canes October 2004 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project on a substrate that is not conducive to rooting (such as concrete, dry gravel, etc). Canes stored in the staging area would be treated. (b) Phase II: Tarping (May-October) The goal of tarping is to prevent all light from reaching any part of the giant reed plant. After removal of above-ground biomass, black tarps would be placed over the cut stems and secured with stakes or large weights (such as rocks, concrete, boards). Tarps would be placed by hand - no equipment or vehicles would be brought into the riparian zone. Tarps would be checked on a regular basis (approximately every two weeks) to determine if there has been any modification to the initial placement as a result of flooding and to correct any problems. In the event that a tarp is removed by vandals, animals, or other environmental factors (such as wind), the tarps would be re-applied or recycled. Tarps would be removed prior to the rainy season, thereby preventing their movement into the stream. When tarps are removed, the treatment would be assessed for percentage of dead stems of giant reed. The site would be evaluate again the following spring and summer for re-growth of giant reed. (c) Phase II: Root Removal - manual Hand removal of roots will be accomplished using hand tools such as picks, shovels and digging bars. The giant reed clumps shall be removed, including all roots and rhizomes, and the removal site shall be re- contoured, consistent with the surrounding soil level. No equipment shall be used in the riparian zone during the hand removal process. One dump track may be used to transport roots/rhizomes and would only be driven on established access roads, and therefore would not impact existing native vegetation or riparian habitat. Roots and rhizomes shall be disposed of outside of the floodway. (d) Phase II: Root Removal - equipment (June-October) Equipment removal of roots would be accomplished using tractors, backhoes or graders. Equipment and associated vehicles would be transported only on established access roads, and would not impact existing native vegetation or riparian habitat. Equipment would not be used within 50 feet of surface water. The giant reed clump would be removed, including all roots and rhizomes, and the removal site would be re- contoured, consistent with the surrounding soil level. Roots and rhizomes would be disposed of outside of the floodway. (e) Phase II: Herbicide application - cut and paint (August-November) Herbicide (glyphosate) would be applied to the stems of giant reed within 30 seconds of cutting. All label directions and applicable laws would be followed. The minimum amount of herbicide required for treatment would be used. Prior to applying herbicide, an emergency response plan would be developed. (f) Phase III: Native Plant Revegetation Those sites that are larger than 100 square feet (or that do not have a source of native plant seeds or propagules) would be revegetated with native plants collected from within ten miles of the revegetation site, or from within the same sub-watershed area. The revegetation species list would be developed based on native plant species that are common within 200 feet of the clump, the size of the removed clump, and October 2004 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project its location (eg, floodplain, bank, gravel bar). Revegetation would take place in the winter, once soils have been saturated by rainfall to a depth of ten inches. Plants would be installed according to the specifications indicated in the specific revegetation plan for the site. Phase III: disposal/re-use of giant reed biomass (canes, roots, rhizomes) Giant reed biomass, including above-ground biomass (canes and leaves) and below-ground biomass (roots and rhizomes) would be disposed of via composting or re-used for other applications on the landowner's property. Composting disposal would consist of piling whole stems or shredded giant reed in a pile outside of the floodway. Giant reed biomass would be used as compost on its own, or mixed with other compost material on the landowner's property. The giant reed compost mixture would be used on site to enhance soil quality. Re-use of giant reed stems would require a stockpile of giant reed stems in the staging area outside of the floodway. These stems would be used over time by the landowner for staking vegetables and other crops, supporting irrigation risers, and miscellaneous uses on the property. The giant reed would be monitored for stem node growth during the first season after cutting to ensure that it does not become established in the staging area/stockpiles. 3.3.2 Construction Schedule Table 3.3.2 Schedule TASK TIMEFRAME A. Landowner Outreach B. Workshops and Community Education C. Site Prioritization and Planning D. Giant Reed Removal E. Riparian Restoration F. Monitoring and Maintenance G. Research March 2003 - May 2014 July 2003 - August 2014 March 2003 - September 2014 May 2003 - November 2014 November 2003 - December 2014 February 2004 - December 2014 March 1999 - December 2014 3.4 Regulatory Requirements The proposed project would cross multiple jurisdictions and would potentially require consultation, approval, and/or permits from various federal, State, and local agencies. The following are regulations that would likely apply to the proposed project: · Consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - Requires approval and/or permit. · Section 1602 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code - Requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) before any October 2004 30 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project action is taken that would obstruct or divert the flow or alter the channel of designated drainages, rivers, streams, and lakes. Potential impacts must be mitigated. · California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 - Provides protection for certain native plants. · California Endangered Species Act of 1984 - Protects California State-listed threatened or endangered species from takings that cause harm to the species or the species' habitat. · U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decrees that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) are fully protected. October 2004 3 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Introduction The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) included analysis of the 16 environmental issue areas and mandatory findings of significance listed below by section number. These issue areas incorporate the topics presented in CEQA's Environmental Checklist (see Appendix A). 4.2 Aesthetics 4.3 Agricultural Resources 4.4 Air Quality 4.5 Biological Resources 4.6 Cultural Resources 4.7 Geology and Soils 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.10 Land Use 4.11 Mineral Resources 4.12 Noise 4.13 4.14 Population and Housing Public Services 4.15 Recreation 4.16 Transportation and Traffic 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance October 2004 32 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project 4.2 Aesthetics 4.2.1 Setting Aesthetic, or visual, characteristics of the project areas vary geographically throughout the sub-regions. Mendocino and Sonoma Counties have policies in place to protect the aesthetics of the area by the implementation of: 1) Review of on and off premises signs and other advertising; 2) Review of all discretionary development proposals, re-zonings and use permits; 3) Discouragement of commercial strip development and urban sprawl; 4) Location of transmission lines along established transmission line corridors; 5) Adequate landscaping of all new residential subdivisions, commercial and industrial uses; and 6) Timber preserve and agricultural preserve zoning controls (Mendocino and Sonoma County General Plans). Scenic Vistas In Mendocino County, the rural and natural landscape offers many scenic vistas of large expanses of land with valleys, rolling hills, agricultural production, and mountain peaks as the back-drop. Although the Pacific coastline is referred to by the County as the "predominant" scenic resource, the natural landscape of much of Mendocino County is highly valued by visitors and those who live there (Mendocino County General Plan). In Sonoma County, coastal bluffs, vineyards, watersheds and mountain ranges provide much of the scenic landscape. The county has identified specific scenic landscapes that are of importance for protection and preservation. These landscapes include: the Pacific coastline, Oat Valley, Alexander and Dry Creek Valleys, hills east of Windsor, Eastside Road, River Road, Laguna de Santa Rosa, Bennett Valley, Highway 116, Atascadero Creek, Coleman Valley, Sonoma Mountains, hills south of Petaluma, Sonoma Valley, and south Sonoma Mountains (Sonoma County General Plan). One of the predominant scenic vistas in the county is Mt. St. Helena (Robert Louis Stevenson State Park) reaching 4,343 feet above sea level (California State Parks, 2004). Scenic Highways A small portion of the proposed project area contains an officially designated State scenic highway. The highway is 116 in Sonoma County from Highway 1 to the south city limits of Sebastopol (Caltrans, 2003). 4.1.1 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. WouM the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCOPORA TED. Activities associated with the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista for the following reasons: · Project sites would be limited to patches of giant reed as described in Mitigation Measure AES-1. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 Russian River Team Arundo Project · Project activities would be performed mainly by hand labor, limiting the amount of equipment used for the proposed project. · The areas where giant reed is to be removed would be revegetated with native plants as described by the Revegetation Plan required in Mitigation Measure BIO-6. · Existing riparian vegetation would partially or completely shield most project activities. · Project activities would move linearly on a daily basis, therefore ensuring that no particular area or view would be impacted for an extended period of time. · Similar temporary project activities are common in agricultural areas or along roadways and are compatible with the rural and urban visual landscape. For sites where project activities would be located in a scenic vista, the potential project impacts would represent a temporary and minor aesthetic impact to the scenic vista. Once native plant revegetation has taken place, the scenic vistas would be enhanced. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and BIO-6, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. AES-1: RRTA shall limit project areas to patches of giant reed and avoid all native riparian plant species. RRTA shall maintain neat and orderly project sites. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Although the majority of the proposed project would not be located within or near a State scenic highway, one State scenic highway passes through a portion of the project area. The highway is 116 in Sonoma County from Highway 1 to the south city limits of Sebastopol. The only vegetation disturbed as part of the project activities would be giant reed as described in Mitigation Measure AES-1. All trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings would be avoided. Areas where giant reed is removed would be revegetated with native plants as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6. c. Would the project degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As described in Section 4.2.2(a), project activities would be temporary and areas where giant reed is to be removed would be revegetated with native plants (see Mitigation Measures AES-1 and BIO-6). This would create an enhanced visual character or quality of the proposed site and its surroundings. a[ Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORA TED. Project activities would not include any long-term changes to light or glare. Since most work would be done by hand October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 Russian River Team Arundo Project labor, the use of equipment would be limited. However, to reduce the light or glare from equipment to less than significant levels for sensitive uses and motorists along streets bordering project areas, Mitigation Measure AES-2 shall be implemented. To further reduce any glare from tarping activities, Mitigation Measure AES-3 shall be implemented. AES-2: Vehicle and equipment lights shall be directed away from the visual field of motorists and pedestrians along any streets or right-of-ways. No nighttime project activities shall occur. AES-3: Only black or brown tarps or pond liners shall be used in the tarping activities of giant reed to reduce and/or eliminate possible glare to less than significant impact levels. 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2.1 Setting Much of the project area is characterized by agricultural lands. Mendocino and Sonoma counties are some of the largest producers of wine grapes and premium wines in California. Other natural agricultural products include fruit, nuts, and high quality dairy products. The proposed project would not take away from prime farmland because wildlife habitat and open space are protected under agricultural resources and the proposed project would enhance wildlife habitat. According to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the law pertains to both agriculture and wildlife habitat (CSCC). 4.2.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? NO IMPA CT. All project activities, including giant reed removal and native plant restoration, would be in line with the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. RRTA would coordinate with farmers regarding giant reed removal and riparian habitat restoration work. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NO IMPACT. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or the Williamson Act contract since wildlife habitat is covered under the Williamson Act. No impacts would OCCur. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 Russian River Team Arundo Project NO IMPACT. Project activities would be temporary and would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. No impacts would occur. 4.3 Air Quality 4.3.1 setting The proposed project includes construction activity throughout the Russian River watershed in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, which are within three different Air Quality Management Districts (Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Southern Sonoma County covered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District). The watershed is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with cool wet winters and hot dry summers. In Mendocino County, the air quality is generally above average with only a few areas having occasional problems. According to the County, "the Fort Bragg area has particulate concentrations sometimes exceeding federal air quality standards, while the Ukiah valley has infrequent excesses of particulates" (Mendocino County Website). Sonoma County boasts the cleanest air in the Bay Area. However, the County does face periods when there are strong atmospheric inversions and stagnation causing pollutants to become concentrated, particularly in the inland valleys (Sonoma County Website). Ambient air quality is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to national and state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at levels determined to be protective of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were first established by the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1967. An area with air quality continuously below or equal to the standards is designated as an area that attains the standards. Air quality standards specify the upper limits of concentrations and duration in the ambient air consistent with the management goal of preventing specific harmful effects. There are national and state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), airbome particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than ten microns (PM10, and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These are "criteria pollutants." Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards are shown in Table 4,3.1. Pollutant Ozone (03) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Respirable Matter (PMIO) Table 4.3.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging Time 8-hour 1 -hour Particulate 8-hour 1 -hour California Standards Annual Arithmetic Mean 1 -hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour NA 0.09ppm 9.0 ppm 20 ppm NA 0.25 ppm 20 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 National Standards 0.08 ppm 0.12 ppm 9.0 ppm 35 ppm 0.053 ppm NA 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 Russian River Team Arundo Project c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As stated above, emissions would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standards in the Air Quality Management Districts. The only long-term project activities that could cause emissions would be the few occasional vehicle trips associated with maintenance and monitoring. eL If ould the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. As stated above, emissions would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standards in the Air Quality Management Districts. The only long-term project activities that could cause emissions would be the few occasional vehicle trips associated with maintenance and monitoring. e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NO IMPACT. The project would not include the types of emission sources or activities that are normally associated with odor impacts. No impact would occur. 4.5 Biological Resources This section describes the biological resources that occur within the project area. It includes a description of common communities of plants and wildlife, wetlands, rare plant communities, and special status plant and wildlife species, followed by an assessment of potential impacts to these resources and mitigation measures designed to offset these impacts. Information used in preparing this section was derived from data sources such as the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, 2004), Native Plant Society Database (CNPS, 2004), a list of Threatened and Endangered species from Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, and a list of species of special concern listed by the California Department of Fish and Game. 4.5.1 Setting Natural Communities and Wildlife Habitats There are potentially several unique natural communities in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties that the Russian River watershed passes through. In Mendocino County, these natural communities include: valley freshwater marsh, fen, north central coast summer and fall-mn steelhead streams, northern interior cypress forest, serpentine bunchgrass, sphagnum bog, upland Douglas fir forest, and valley oak woodland. In Sonoma County, these natural communities include: coastal and valley freshwater marsh, northern coastal salt marsh, northern hardpan vernal pool, and valley needlegrass grassland. Because October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 Russian River Team Arundo Project these are unique natural communities, they have the potential to contain unique special status species. In order to avoid these special status species, some of these habitats will be avoided completely. All coastal and valley freshwater marshes with high botanical value (i.e. Pitkin marsh, Cunningham marsh, Perry marsh - Sonoma County) will be avoided. All northern coastal salt marshes will be avoided. All fens (i.e. Inglenook Fen- Mendocino County), sphagnum bogs, and peat bogs (Pygmy Cypress Forest - Mendocino County) will be avoided. All serpentine soil types will be avoided, which will include the natural communities of northern interior cypress forest, serpentine chaparral, and serpentine bunchgrass. All vernal pools will be avoided. Special Status Plants and Wildlife There are several special status species in both Mendocino and Sonoma counties that could potentially be near stands of giant reed within riparian areas. Table 4.5.1 summarizes special status species for Mendocino and Sonoma Counties that could occur along the Russian River and its tributaries, the species status, the species habitat type, and the species potential to occur within the project area. Species that occur in the special habitats listed above (Natural Communities and Wildlife Habitats), are not discussed since these areas will be totally avoided. Table 4.5.1. Special Status Species & Potential In the Proposed Project Sub-regions Special Status Species Identified in Mendocino and Sonoma County with Potential to Occur in Project Area Status Species Name USFWS/CDFG) Habitat Potential for Occurrence F~SH Central California Rivers (that flow into the ocean) and This species is expected to coast steelhead FT/-- tributaries of those rivers, be in the Russian River Oncorhynchus and its tributaries. mykiss irideus Chinook salmon Rivers (that flow into the ocean) and This species is expected to Oncorhynchus Fl'/-- tributaries of those rivers, be in the Russian River gorbuscha and its tribUtaries. Coho salmon Rivers (that flow into the ocean) and This species is expected to Oncorhynchus FT/CE tributaries of those rivers, be in the Russian River kisutch and its tributaries. Tidewater goby Rivers (that flow into the ocean) Mouth of the Russian Eucyclogobius FE/CSC River. newberryi Navarro roach Rivers and streams. This species is expected to Lavinia --/CSC be in the Russian River symrnetricus and its tributaries. navarroensis Gualala roach Rivers and streams. This species is expected to Lavinia --/CSC be in the Russian River symmetricus and its tributaries. parvipinnis October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 4O Russian River Team Arundo Project Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24-hour 1 -hour 12 ug/m3 NA NA 0.04 ppm 0.25 ppm 15 ug/m3 65 ug/m3 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm NA Notes: ppm = parts per million; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = no applicable standard Source: CARB, 2003 All three air quality districts were contacted for the preparation of this document. Both the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District and the Southern Sonoma County Air Quality Management District stated that they did not foresee any significant impacts from the project, and that no air quality modeling was necessary (Chris Brown, Mendocino County AQMD, personal communication 6-8-04; Susann Bourguignon Southern Sonoma County AQMD, personal communication 6-10-04). Northern Sonoma County APCD did not respond to a request for comment. Because of the project's small size (in comparison with other construction activities in both counties) and the phased project schedule, the emissions would not be expected to exceed air quality standards. 4.4.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION. Project activities would result in some emissions from commuter work trips, use of limited construction equipment, and travel over unpaved surfaces. Emissions would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standards in the Air Quality Management Districts. Once the giant reed is removed, tarped or painted, and the area revegetated, restoration maintenance would continue through 2014. Restoration maintenance would include work trips to the project area to do maintenance and monitoring approximately 3 times a year. AQ-1 RRTA shall ensure that the following measures are implemented to reduce short-term project- related emissions: · Minimize equipment idling time · Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications · Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas, or electric, as appropriate. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As stated above, emissions would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality standards in the Air Quality Management Districts. The only long-term project activities that could cause emissions would be the few occasional vehicle trips associated with maintenance and monitoring. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 Russian River Team Arundo Project Russian River tule Rivers and streams. This species is expected to perch --/C$C be in the Russian River Hysterocarpus and its tributaries. traski pomo Sacramento splittail --/C$C Rivers and streams. This species is expected to Pogonichthys be in the Russian River macrolepidotus and its tributaries. REPTILES & AMPHIBIANS Foothill yellow- Gravelly or sandy streams with sunny This species is expected to legged frog --/CSC banks and open woodlands nearby, be in tributaries of the Rana boylii From sea level to about 6,000 feet. Russian River. Northwestern pond Slow moving streams, ponds, This species is expected to turtle reservoirs, be in tributaries of the Emys (=Clemrnys) --/C_SC Russian River. marmorata marmorata Western tailed frog Clear, cold swift-flowing mountain This species may occur in Ascaphus truei --/CSC streams, the headwaters of the Russian River watershed. California tiger Subterranean retreats near ponds in This species may occur in salamander FP/CSC grasslands and open woodlands, the Laguna de Santa Rosa. Ambystoma californiense INVERTEBRATES California freshwater Streams with undercut banks and This speciesisexpectedto shrimp [:E/CE blackberry roots overhanging into the be in some tributaries of Syncaris pacifica water, the Russian River. BIRDS Tri-colored blackbird Riparian areas. Nests near or over This species has a low (nesting colony) --/CSC water in shrubs or reeds, potential to nest in the Agelaius tricolor Russian River watershed. Purple martin --/CSC Riparian areas. Nests in tree holes This species is expected to Progne subis (especially dead tree cavities) near occur in the Russian River water, watershed. White-tailed kite DFG Riparian areas. Nests in treetops. This species is expected to (nesting) fully occur in the Russian River Elanus leucurus protected watershed. Great blue heron DFG Riparian areas. Nests in trees. This species is expected to (rookery) fully occur in the Russian River Ardea herodias Protected watershed. Osprey (nesting) Riparian areas. Nests in treetops. This species is expected to Pandion haliaetus --/CSC occur in the Russian River watershed. Double-crested Riparian areas. Nests in trees or This species may occur in cormorant (rookery) --/CSC ground, the Russian River October 2004. Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 Russian River Team Arundo Project Phalacrocorax watershed. auritus Cooper's hawk --/CSC Riparian areas. Nests in trees. This species is expected to Accipiter cooperii occur in the Russian River watershed. Yellow warbler Riparian thickets. Nests in trees or This species is expected to Dendroica --/CSC thickets, occur in the Russian River petechia brewsteri watershed. Yellow-breasted chat --/CSC Riparian areas. Nests in dense brash This species is expected to Icteria virens or scrub, occur in the Russian River watershed. MAMMALS Red tree vole Coastal riparian areas. This species is expected to Arborimuspomo --/CSC occur in the Russian River watershed. Pacific fisher Mixed hardwood and coniferous This species may occur in Martes pennanti FC/CSC forests, the Russian River paci~ca watershed. PLANTS Sonoma alopecurus FE/-- Riparian scrub areas. This species is expected to Alopecurus CNPS occur in the Russian River aequalis var lB watershed. sonomensis Big-scale balsamroot Valley and foothill grasslands. This species is expected to Balsamorhiza CNPS lB occur in the Russian River macrolepis var watershed. macrolepis Sonoma sunshine [:E/CE Valley and foothill grasslands. This species is expected to Blennosperma CNPS lB occur in the Russian River bakeri watershed. Thurber's reed grass Marshes and swamps. This species is expected to Calamagrostis CNPS 2 occur in the Russian River crassiglumis watershed. (Calamagrostis stricta ssp. inexpansa) White sedge FE/CE Marshes and swamps. This species is expected to Carex albida CNPS lB occur in the Russian River watershed. Lock Lomond button- FE/CE Spring-fed pools. This species in known to celery CNPS lB be in only two spring-fed Eryngium shallow pools in Sonoma constancei County. These pools will be avoided. North Coast --/CT Upland riparian This species is expected to semaphore grass CNPS 1 B occur in the Russian River October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 Russian River Team Arundo Project Pleuropogon watershed. hooverianus Baker's meadowfoam --/CR Meadows and seeps, marshes and This speciesisexpectedto Lirnnanthes bakeri CNP$ lB swamps, valley and foothill grasslands, occur in the Russian River watershed. Great bumet Riparian areas, meadows and seeps, This species is expected to Sanguisorba CNPS 2 marshes and swamps, broad-leafed occur in the Russian River officinalis upland forests, watershed. Source: CNDDB, May 2, 2004 STATUS CODES: FEDERAL: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) FE = Listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction) by the Federal Govemment FT = Listed as Threatened (likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future) by Federal Government FP = Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened FC = Candidate to become a proposed species FSC = Federal Species of Concern. May be Endangered or Threatened, but not enough biological information has been gathered to support listing at this time. STATE: (California Department of Fish and Game) CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) CSC = California Species of Special Concern 3503.5 = Protection for nesting species of Falconiformes (hawks) and Strigiformes (owls) 4.5.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures presented in this section are intended to reduce potential adverse effects on biological resources (e.g., special-status species, wetlands, riparian habitat) to less than significant levels. WouM the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. No focused botanical surveys for special status plant species have been conducted within the proposed project areas. Ground disturbing activities could result in direct impacts to special status plant species that may occur within and adjacent to the project and would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (below), requiring pre-construction surveys, demarking of sensitive plant locations, and supervision by a designated environmental monitor would reduce this impact to less than significant. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Russian River Team Arundo Project Temporary loss of habitat within the project area could result from giant reed removal activities. Project activities including mechanical removal and herbicide application could directly or indirectly remove native habitat. This temporarily affected habitat, however, would be restored to a more productive native habitat type, providing a net benefit to wildlife, and is therefore considered a potentially adverse impact that can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The primary mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to wildlife habitat are: preconstruction surveys to determine wildlife presence or absence (Mitigation Measure BIO-2, below), implementation of a Workers Environmental Awareness Plan (Mitigation Measure BIO-3, see below), compliance with State and federal laws protecting special status species (Mitigation Measure BIO-4, see below), and an herbicide treatment plan that would protect wetlands and associated sensitive vegetation (Mitigation Measure BIO-5). Implementation of these measures would reduce potentially significant wildlife habitat impacts to less than significant levels. Direct loss of small mammals, reptiles, other less-mobile species, and ground nests, could result from surface ground disturbance during project activities. Clearing vegetation and excavating soil could also lead to mortality of small mammals, reptiles and nesting birds with eggs or young. Most of the wildlife that may be impacted by construction are common, wide-ranging species. These common species are expected to quickly re-colonize the corridor after construction and subsequent revegetation work is completed. In addition, the use of hand tools rather than heavy equipment minimizes the potential to impact wildlife since most species can escape to adjacent areas. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wildlife with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. BIO-l: RRTA shall avoid impacts to special status plant species by: · Conducting pre-construction surveys for special status plant species where ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment would take place · Flagging and mapping to protect any special status plant species within or adjacent to the proposed project area during ground disturbing activities · Implementing a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) with regard to special status species · Supervision and verification of the implementation of these measures by an agency- approved Environmental Monitor. Prior to ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment, the location of special status plant species will be determined through surveys according to California Native Plant Society (CNPS) protocol. Determination of potential habitat for rare species, and surveys conducted for presence of rare plant species will be performed by a qualified biologist. These surveys will be appropriately timed to cover the blooming periods of the special status plant species with the potential to occur in the area. Any rare plant species within the proposed project area where .ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment will take place (including a 50-foot wide buffer zone on each side of the project's work areas) shall be flagged, accurately mapped on plans, and fenced to protect the area occupied by the species during the removal of giant reed. Installation of ESA fencing shall be supervised by an Environmental Monitor, and appropriate buffer distances from the rare plant October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration Russian River Team Arundo Project population shall be determined by the monitor. The monitor shall have the authority to require installation of silt fencing or other erosion control measures in highly sensitive areas or under certain conditions where potential erosion may impact a special status plant species or its habitat. BIO-2: For ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment, RRTA shall ensure pre- construction biological resource surveys to identify the location of sensitive biological resources. Pre-construction surveys will be consistent with all survey protocols and requirements stipulated by resource agencies as a condition of project approval. Sensitive resources shall be clearly mapped and marked on construction drawings or project maps before construction in these areas occurs. Monitors shall also inspect all areas with sensitive resources prior to construction to ensure that stakes, flagging, and required setback buffers are maintained. Avoidance measures and buffer distances vary for each species. The specific buffer zone distance will be determined by the appropriate resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS). B10-3: RRTA shall conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for field crews. All field crews and sub-contractors shall participate in WEAP training prior to starting work on the project and within two days of any new worker arrival. The program will consist of a briefing on environmental issues relative to the proposed project. Training of crews will be conducted by the designated Biologist or Environmental Monitor. The training program will include an overview of the legal status, biology, distribution, habitat needs, and permits and compliance requirements for each special status species that may occur in the project area. The presentation will also include a discussion of the legal protection for endangered species under the U.S. and State Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA). A fact sheet conveying this information will be distributed to all personnel who enter the project site. Upon completion of the orientation, employees will sign a form stating that they attended the program and understand all mitigation measures. The forms will be filed at CRP and SRCD and will be accessible to the appropriate agencies. RRTA shall be responsible for ensuring that all project personnel and sub-contractors adhere to the WEAP. Additional training will take place for any new crew members. BIO-4: RRTA shall acquire all permits and authorizations required by federal, State, regional and local jurisdictions to proceed with the proposed project. Throughout the life of the project, additional species may be listed or designated as special status, and RRTA shall comply with any new requirements of the USFWS, NMFS, or CDFG for such species. BIO-5: All activities requiring herbicide treatment would: · Appropriately time work so that herbicides are not applied during the wet season to avoid potential impacts to downstream vegetation, and to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife species. · RRTA shall consult the National Weather Service and allow at least four days of dry weather before application of herbicide. · Treatments shall use a glyphosate-based herbicide including Rodeo® and/or Round-up®. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 Russian River Team Arundo Project · Ensure that herbicides are applied at concentrations that are considered safe for biological resources within and adjacent to the project area. · Ensure that herbicides are mixed with non-toxic water soluble dye that highlights treated areas. · Minimize trampling of native vegetation by establishing marked trails. · Avoid native riparian plant species. · Have a licensed pesticide applicator conduct or oversee herbicide applications. · Supervision and verification of the implementation of these measures by the Environmental Monitor. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPA CT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORA TED. Impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands may occur during giant reed removal resulting in a temporary loss of sensitive vegetation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (below), requiring avoidance of wetlands and native riparian vegetation, and restoration/creation, as well as the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, would reduce the impact to riparian vegetation and wetlands to less than significant. BIO-6: RRTA shall avoid damage and/or loss of wetland and native riparian vegetation types due to giant reed removal during ground disturbing activities by completing the following: · Maximum avoidance of native wetland and riparian plant and tree species. · Soil replacement where ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment take place · Implementation of a proposed project's Revegetation Plan · Supervision and verification of the implementation of these measures by an Environmental Monitor. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but no limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Giant reed removal may result in temporary impact to wetland hydrology within and adjacent to the project area. Temporary impacts could be caused by interception and detention of groundwater or surface water within the project area, thus reducing the hydrologic input to the adjacent wetland. This impact is only anticipated in the area of the project that will implement mechanical removal of root/rhizome material. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 (below), requiring native soil/material replacement and proper contour grading, as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6, would reduce this impact to less than significant. BIO-7: The purpose of this measure is to prevent temporary hydrologic alteration to wetlands and associated sensitive vegetation from soil disturbance activities associated with the project by requiring: October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 Russian River Team Arundo Project · Work shall be timed such that that soil disturbance is minimized during the wet season (when surface water is present) · Soil stabilization measures, including: tamping/compacting soil with hand tools, planting vegetation on 2 - 10 foot centers, seeding, mulching, and installation of erosion control fabrics where necessary to reduce the risk of sediment discharge to wetlands · Soil and grade restoration measures where ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment have taken place, including backfill of native material to original grade and composition · Supervision and verification of the implementation of these measures by the Environmental Monitor. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project could interfere substantially with thc movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Based on thc potential for these impacts, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 (below) will reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. BIO-8: If ground disturbing activities are proposed for a project area, RRTA shall avoid mechanical removal of giant reed from the active channel during the migration period of special status anadromous species in streams that potentially support these species. On- site Environmental Monitors will be provided at these locations to address construction activities that may interfere with the migration of anadromous special status fish and wildlife species. No instream construction activities will be allowed during migrational periods within streams that support special status anadromous species, unless otherwise authorized by CDFG and/or NMFS. RRTA shall perform surveys to assess sensitive spawning and rearing areas along the proposed project line where mechanical removal of giant reed will take place. This effort shall be conducted in consultation with CDFG and/or NMFS prior to construction. Spawning and rearing areas shall be identified and avoided during critical periods. These surveys shall be conducted only in areas with the potential for special status fish species. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. RRTA has indicated that no trees are expected to be removed and that, if any variation is required that could adversely affect locally protected trees within the project areas, RRTA would seek approval from the local regulatory office before proceeding. As such, any impacts should be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 Russian River Team Arundo Project f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? NO IMPACT. The proposed project is in collaboration with the local Resource Conservation Districts and is not in conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan. Additional Biological Resources Mitigation Measures: BIO-9: RRTA shall ensure that all project personnel comply with the following: · Litter or other debris that may attract animals shall be removed fi.om the project area · No pets will be allowed in the project area, including access roads and staging areas. BIO-10: Ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment for giant reed removal shall be limited to periods outside the known breeding period for migratory birds. No pre- construction surveys will be required for activities that occur during the non-breeding season (October 1 through March 1). If ground disturbing activities are required within the breeding season (March 1 - September 30), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting birds within three days prior to the start of project activities to ensure no nesting birds shall be impacted by the project. These surveys shall include the areas within 200 feet of the edge of the proposed impact area(s). If active nests are found, a minimum of a 50-feet fence barrier shall be erected around the nest site. No habitat removal or any other work shall occur within the fenced nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, or have left the nest and will no longer be impacted by the project. RRTA shall submit the mapped survey results to the Department for review and approval prior to vegetation removal to ensure full avoidance measures are in place. BIO-Il: RRTA shall avoid disturbance to active raptor nests within or near the project. For ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment, no pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors shall be required if work is to occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). If, however, ground disturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), pre- construction surveys of all potentially active nest sites within 500 feet of the project site shall be conducted in areas that may potentially have nesting raptors, including ground nesting raptor species such as northern harder and burrowing owls. If surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the life of the project, no further mitigation shall be required. If active nests are found, a minimum 200-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest(s). The size of individual buffers can be adjusted, following a site evaluation by a qualified raptor biologist, which shall depend upon the presence of topographical features that obstruct the line of sight fi.om the project activities to the nest October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 Russian River Team Arundo Project BIO-12: and the observed sensitivity of the birds. Site evaluations and buffer adjustments shall be made in consultation with the local CDFG representatives. The portion of the project that is within the designated buffer shall be identified in the field by staking and flagging. In the unlikely event that active nests of native birds are found within stands of giant reed by RRTA during hand removal of giant reed, all project activities at that location shall cease and a minimum of a 50-feet buffer zone shall be flagged around the nest site. No giant reed removal or any other work shall occur within the flagged nest zone until the young have fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents, or have left the nest and will no longer be impacted by the project. 4.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 4.6.1 Setting Information used in preparing this section was derived from a Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the proposed project, which included'numerous sources of data and research (Garcia and Associates, 2004). Records and literature research conducted for the project areas noted that some cultural resource studies/surveys, which vary in scope, have been previously conducted within these areas. Prehistoric Context The earliest occupation of the North Coast Ranges, and the study area in particular, may have occurred during the Paleo-Indian period from ca. 10,000 to 6,000 B.C. The Post Pattern (Fredrickson 1973, 1974) is considered indicative of this time period, and was identified from the Borax Lake site in Lake County just northwest of Sonoma County. Fredrickson considers the Post Pattern to be a northern California manifestation of the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition. The economic focus of the Post Pattern appears to have been on hunting and lacustrine activities (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:47). Attributes of the Post Pattern include darts tipped with fluted projectile points and the inferred use of the atlatl (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:47). Chipped stone crescents, which may have served as tips on darts or as transverse projectile points, also occur during this period (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:47). These artifacts may have been associated with the hunting of waterfowl (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:202). Dowdall and Origer (1997:1) suggest alternative functions of stone crescents, including their use as amulets or animal effigies. The Lower Archaic Period, from 6000 to 3000 B.C., is represented by the Borax Lake Pattern. The Borax Lake Pattern indicates the importance of both hunting and seed collecting during this period and it is typified by the technologies associated with these activities. The Borax Lake Aspect of the Borax Lake Pattern is marked by wide-stem projectile points as well as the millingstone and mano. The Middle Archaic Period (3,000 to 1,000 B.C.) is marked by the addition of non-fluted concave-base points and the bowl mortar. Fredrickson terms this the Mendocino Aspect of the Borax Lake Pattern. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 Russian River Team Arundo Project The Upper Archaic Period (1,000 B.C. to 500 A.D) is represented by the Houx Aspect of the Berkeley Pattern and this period coincides with the replacement of millingstones with mortars and pestles, and the replacement of concave-base projectile points with shouldered lanceolate and contracting stem forms. The Houx Aspect of the Berkeley Pattern is believed to have been influenced by the cultures of the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay region (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:48). While there was a continued economic focus on hunting, the extensive use of acorns also characterized the Houx Aspect, as inferred from the presence of the bowl mortar and pestle (Origer and Fredrickson 1980:48). The late prehistoric and early historic periods are represented by the Clear Lake Pattern of the Emergent Period (A.D. 500-1850). Small, comer-notched projectile points are evidence of the use of the bow and arrow during this period, while the slab mortar with basket hopper replaced the bowl mortar. The cultural sequence for the general area is summarized below in Table 1. Table 4.6.1: Cultural Sequence in the North Coast Ranges (after Fredrickson 1984) Archaeological Period Paleo-Indian Lower Archaic Middle Archaic Upper Archaic Emergent Approximate Age 10~000 to 6~000 B.C. 6t000 to 3t000 B.C. 3t000 to lt000 B.C. lt000 B.C. to A.D. 500 A.D. 500 to 1850 Archaeological Pattern Post Borax Lake/Borax Lake Aspect Borax Lake/Mendocino Aspect Berkeley Clear Lake Ethnographic Context The Native Americans controlling the lands of the study area at the time of historic contact included the Pomo and the Wappo Native American groups. McLendon and Oswalt (1978: Figure 2) indicate that the entire Russian River drainage was controlled, from north to south, by the Northern, Central, Southern, and Kashaya Pomo. Pomo The Pomo occupied the area from central Mendocino County south to central Sonoma County. The Pomo included seven different dialects and tribal areas (tribelets) (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:276). Their territory included the entire Russian River drainage and areas west into the Clear Lake Basin (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:274). Anthropologist A. L. Kroeber provided the following period description of a Pomo settlement along the Russian River: Russian River flows through a country of hill ridges, which in many places are dignifiable with the appellation of mountains. Like most of California, it is a half-timbered country. Conifers stand on the higher crests, oaks are scattered over the slopes and levels, manzanita and other brush runs up over most of the country where the grade permits, and yet find few large areas of grass. True meadows are almost lacking; wet, low places run to tule rush instead. Russian River flows through a series of small inclosed [sic] valleys, not a continuous plain. Side streams are numerous, often in deep ravines of some length, yet dry in summer; but springs are abundant to any one familiar with the country. It is typical California land; arid to the eye once the winter rains are over, yellow and gray in tone, but fertile; monotonous in the extreme to the stranger, yet endlessly variegated to those familiar with it and its resources. It is good October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 Russian River Team Arundo Project Indian habitat from the mildness of the climate and the diversity of its products: fishing in winter, plenty of small game the year round, a moderate supply of deer, acorns everywhere, and brush, grass, weeds, and bulb plants in dozens of abundant species yielding their ready quota. Here was situate [sic] the kernel and bulk of the nation. More than a third of the Pomo communities were on this river, most of them with their winter quarters almost on its very banks (Kroeber 1925:226). The radiation of ancestral Pomoan peoples from the upper Russian River valley into their ethnographic territories probably occurred during the Middle Archaic period (ca. 3000-1000 B.C.), and may have been marked by the Mendocino Aspect (Fredrickson 1984:510, 522). The extent and nature of the land claimed by each village-community was determined by the nature of the terrain, its ecology, and the nature of the particular group's adaptation to that ecology (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:275). Differences in the carrying capacity of the environment resulted in several village-communities being located in close proximity to one another, particularly along the Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:276). Northern Pomo The Northern Pomo occupied the area of central Mendocino County with the majority of tribelets living in small valleys in the drainage of the Upper Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:283). Northern Pomo villages on the Russian River included: Shoda-Kay on the lower east fork of the Russian River; Kacha on the upper west fork of the Russian River; and Balo-Kay on the upper east fork of the Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:283-284, Figure 5). Central Pomo The territory of the Central Pomo included southern Mendocino County and stretched from the coast to a border with the Eastern Pomo at the crest of the range east of the Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:281). On the Russsian River, their northern boundary was at or near Ukiah (Barrett 1908). Central Pomo villages located on the Russian River drainage included: Qahwalaw, at the confluence of Pieta Creek and the Russian River; and Sepda, at the confluence of Cummiskey Creek and the Russian River; and Kalohko, south of the confluence of Cummiskey Creek and the Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:281-282, Figure 4). Southern Pomo The Southern Pomo controlled an area that extended from south of Santa Rosa northward to near the Sonoma County border, and from the eastern drainage of the Russian River westward to Central Pomo territory, with a narrow extension to the coast between these two territories (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:276). A Southern Pomo tribelet territory was likely to contain one or two principal villages, up to a dozen satellite villages, hamlets that were home to only one or two families, and innumerable camps, hunting sites, and food-gathering areas within carefully defined territorial boundaries (Stewart 1985:16). A number of Southern Pomo villages are known from the Russian River area. Barrett (1908) shows a large number of ethnographic village locations in close proximity to the Russian River. Kroeber (1925:233) states that "...on the Russian River in the vicinity of Healdsburg a great number of villages have been recorded, but their grouping is entirely obscure." According to Stewart (1943:53), the Pomo tribelet of Kataictemi was centered about Kale (Healdsburg) and this tribelet owned the territory on both October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $1 Russian River Team Arundo Project sides of the Russian River north of Mark West Creek and south of the Wappo boundary at Fitch Mountain. At least three Southern Pomo villages were located on the Russian River: Makahmo, on Big Sulphur Creek near its confluence with the Russian River; Arnako, on the east bank of the Russian River across from Asti; and Ya-ka-ama, near the confluence of Mark West Creek and the Russian River. (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:278-280, Figure 3). The Southern Pomo population was reduced or destroyed, especially in the southern part of their territory, by missionization, Mexican slave raids, disease, and denser settlement by immigrants (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:276). As a result, ethnic identity was lost in the region of Santa Rosa and Sebastopol several generations ago. Kashaya Pomo The Kashaya Pomo occupied an area of about 30 miles of the Sonoma County coast. Their territory extended inland from five to 13 miles and included the mouth of the Russian River (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:278, Figure 3). One Kashaya Pomo village is known from near the mouth of the Russian River: Sohqawi (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:278-279, Figure 3). Some Kashaya Pomo have lived on a small 40-acre reservation within this territory since the late 1970s, while others still reside elsewhere in the county (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:278). tVappo The Wappo controlled the area in the vicinity of the city of Napa northward to the Geysers, and a portion of the Alexander Valley on the west, with a small settlement on Clear Lake (Kroeber 1925:218, plate 27). Their settlements were located in the valleys of major watercourses including the Napa River, Big Sulphur Creek, and the Russian River (Kroeber 1925:218). The Westem Wappo, who spoke one of five Wappo dialects, occupied the area from Alexander Valley northeast to Cobb Mountain and south to Mount St. Helena. Wappo settlement patterns consisted of several villages located within tribelet boundaries, with a larger and continuously inhabited town as the primary center of the community (Kroeber 1925:218-219). The major Western Wappo village of Pipoholma was located on the Russian River near Geyserville (Kroeber 1925:219). Native American Settlement Patterns Regarding prehistoric use and/or settlement of the study area, it should be noted that the Russian River floodplain is subject to occasional flooding. As a result, soils in the study area consist predominantly of alluvial deposits representing past flood events (Miller 1972). While this floodplain may have been used occasionally during the prehistoric period, perhaps for food procurement or ceremonial events such as dances, it seems unlikely that habitations or other long-term utilization would have occurred in an area subject to seasonal flooding and inundation. If short-term prehistoric use of the floodplain area occurred, evidence of this use may be obliterated or scoured away by the river's flooding. During recent times, various types of resource extraction, particularly gravel mining, have occurred in the Russian River floodplain, and these activities may have destroyed evidence of prehistoric use and/or settlement along the banks of the Russian River. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 Russian River Team Arundo Project European Context Early Settlement In addition to prehistoric and Native peoples in the vicinity of the project area, Europeans have made their mark as well. In 1775, Juan Francisco de Bodega y Cuadro of Spain landed at Bodega Bay to find the river basin a virtual paradise, with all of the desirable elements for strong commerce already in place (Wilson 1990). The arrival of the Spanish, who called the Russian River the San Ygnacio River, forever altered the future of this pristine region. The Spanish were soon followed by the Russians in 1808, led by Alexander Kuskoff of the Russian-American Company. This company, under the leadership of Alexander Baranov, turned to the south in search of more hospitable lands after Russian fur traders virtually decimated the otter populations in Alaska, taking an estimated 100,000 pelts within the last decade of the past century alone (Wilson 1990). The Russian settlers called the river Slavianka, or "Little Slavic Maiden." By 1811, they had established colonies at Fort Ross and Bodega Bay and had navigated up the river to the Geysers on Sulphur Creek. Kyrill Khlebnikov, a Russian traveler reporting on the countryside around Fort Ross in the early 1800s, noted that "among quadrupeds the most important are bears, lynx, ordinary wolves, and small ones which the Spanish called coyotes. They catch sturgeon in the Slavianka River when the channel is open (Wilson 1990)." Russian settlers remained in the Russian River area until about 1840, fur trapping otter along the coast and the river, exploring the river basin and possibly cultivating the river valley for wheat and cattle grazing (Ferguson 1931). In 1831, a Rancho grant was issued for Rafael Gomez at Santa Rosa in order to limit Russia's encroachment into the Russian River Valley (Wilson 1990). In an 1843 Spanish petition for the Bodega grant the name of the river appeared as Rio Russo, and it has been called the Russian River since. With the presence of the Spanish increasing, cattle and horse ranching became the dominant land use in the Russian River Valley during the rancho period from 1835 to 1846. In 1837, a smallpox epidemic decimated the Native Americans living in villagesthroughout the river valley, leaving the area open to colonization by Mexican settlers (Ferguson 1931). The Russians abandoned their efforts to establish a colony in 1841 and sold their settlements to Captain Sutter, bringing more "Americans" into the region. During the Mexican-American war in 1846 (the same year the Bear Flag revolt occurred in Sonoma), California was declared a republic. In the years to follow, hostilities ensued between the Indians, Mexicans and newly-settled Americans in the Russian River Valley, escalating in 1847 when the Russian River saw the arrival of many land-hungry American settlers. Logging Logging in Sonoma and Mendocino counties began with the first European arrivals and became an essential part of the economy. Initially, logging served local building projects such as missions, presidios, barracks, residences, and other domestic purposes. The Spanish used redwood to build local missions in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1812, the Russians used redwood to build Fort Ross (Davis 1983). Oak was harvested for fuelwood, furniture, barrels, and saddles. California did not experience large-scale timber production until the 1830s when overseas trade increased demand for timber worldwide. A lively export of lumber products developed in the region, October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 Russian River Team Arundo Project with sawmills operating on Mount Tamalpais in the 1830s (Dillon and Dillon 1993:14). However, the most significant boost to the timber industry in California came in 1848 with the California Gold Rush. Local demand for timber products to line mining tunnels and shafts soared. Commercial logging in California utilized oxen, horses and mules to yard logs to sawmills before logging railroads became established. Some mills floated logs by creeks within the Russian River Watershed or fiver channels to the ocean where schooners would pick them up and haul them to San Francisco and elsewhere. The North Pacific Coast Railroad (pre-cursor to the Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP)) reached the Russian River in 1876, and six lumber mills sprang into being. The Duncan, Tyrone, Moscow, and other sawmills used the railroad to transport finished lumber to San Francisco, which ended lumber shipment by schooner (Dillon and Dillon, 1993:40). The NWP played a brief role in Mendocino County by carrying redwood logs to San Francisco Bay Area markets (Dillon and Dillon 1993:32). Russian River Railroads The Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) was another important part of the Russian River region's history. While there were already small towns within the Russian River watershed, these towns boomed with the coming of the NWP. Towns like Cloverdale, Santa Rosa, Ukiah, Willits, Healdsburg, and many others flourished. The railroad allowed these towns to access markets for their agricultural goods and other commodities. It also allowed easier transportation to and from San Francisco and surrounding communities. Two lines ran to the Russian River. After the ferry connection at Sausalito, the narrow gauge line turned west from San Anselmo in Matin County and proceeded through a wooded area to Pt. Reyes, then along Tomales Bay, inland through agricultural country and into the redwood forests just before Occidental. Continuing northward, the narrow gauge encountered the Russian River at Monte Rio, followed the south bank and crossed the river at Duncan Mills. It then followed Austin Creek to Cazadreo. The broad gauge went directly north to Petaluma and Santa Rosa from the ferry terminal. At Fulton, it headed west and ran along the Russian River from Mirabel to Duncan Mills. Before these two separate lines were combined to form the NWP in 1907, they were intense rivals, vying for the coveted transportation of the lumber coming from Mendocino and Sonoma counties (Stindt 1974). In addition to the NWP, various feeder lines tied into the larger NWP system. These feeder lines were predominantly owned by logging companies that were harvesting redwood trees for lumber and using the railroad to get their goods to market. These feeder lines traversed the Russian River tributaries and watershed and had a substantial environmental and economic impact to the region (Stindt 1974). Agriculture Sonoma agriculture initially was characterized by large dairy farms. These farms flourished in the fertile valleys. By 1870, butter was Sonoma County's chief export (Hansen and Miller 1962). The agricultural landscape would soon shift from dairy production to poultry production and fruit growing. Penngrove and Petaluma became the "World's Eggbasket" with poultry farmers raising chickens for meat and eggs. In 1907, Sonoma County produced 8,000,000 dozen eggs, 3,500,000 pounds of butter, had over a million fruit trees, and produced 10,000,000 gallons of wine. The poultry boom required massive amounts of feed for the chickens, and Petaluma quickly became the distribution center of October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 Russian River Team Arundo Project western and central Sonoma County. Numerous large warehouses and feed mills were built on the NWP mainline and spurs to accommodate the huge demand for feed and other agricultural materials supplied by trains. In 1938, the tallest structure in Sonoma County was the Poultry Producers of Central California Coop Feed Mill (Withington 2000). Train service ensured that poultry products and fruit could be shipped quickly to market. Continued train service further helped the fruit growing business develop once the poultry boom subsided. Mendocino County agriculture also began with early European settlement. Settlers generally grew crops to support themselves and raised livestock. The biggest boost in agriculture in the county came with the Gold Rush. Immigrant farmers, failing as prospectors, turned to agriculture as a way of life in their new home. Having saved the flatter lands on the river and stream plains for farming food crops, these pioneers planted vineyards on the more rugged hillsides and sun-exposed ridgetops. Wine Production Grape and wine production has been an integral part of the history and economy of the Russian River Watershed. As early as 1812, Russian colonists planted and cultivated grapes at Fort Ross on the Sonoma coast. Spanish Franciscan fathers established a more permanent legacy in 1824 when Padre Jose Altimira planted several thousand grape vines at Mission San Francisco Solano in Sonoma (Wilson 1990). In 1834, political upheaval brought an appropriation of all missions by the Mexican government. During this period of disarray, Sonoma mission vineyard cuttings traveled throughout northern California and established new production centers. By 1847, Mexican governor General Mariano Vallejo's vineyards were producing $20,000 annually. Hungarian immigrant Agoston Haraszthy purchased the Salvador Vallejo vineyard in Sonoma Valley in 1855, and began commercial wine production from the re-named Buena Vista Vineyard (Wilson 1990). Trouble surfaced in 1873, when a worldwide outbreak of phylloxera (American root louse) nearly destroyed Sonoma County vineyards. The industry located disease-resistant stock and grafted it to the varietal shoots. The wine industry recovered to the point that an October 22, 1876, San Francisco Chronicle article noted, "As a wine growing region, Sonoma stands at the head of the list." By 1920, the county boasted 256 wineries, surpassing Los Angeles in total wine acreage with more than 22,000 acres in production. In 1998, there were 194 wineries and 44,700 acres of grapes (SCGGA Website 2003). The year 1919 marked the onset of Prohibition, as the United States Government shut down the commercial wine industry with the 18th Amendment and passage of the Volstead Act. Ambiguity characterized application of the Volstead Act to the wine industry. San Francisco Judge Van Fleet declined to rule on exempting wineries. The Sonoma County Grape Growers organization voted to make wine despite the new law. Eventually wineries not making "sacramental" or "medicinal" wine closed, but some grape growers like the Olivette Winery actually flourished. A legal loophole allowed 200 gallons of wine yearly for home production, and over 150 million gallons were produced in hundreds of thousands of households in 1930. The grape production reported for Sonoma County totaled 21,300 acres in 1930 (Wilson 1990). 1933 brought the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the repeal of Prohibition, but not in time for many local wineries. Only 160 of California's 700 wineries remained in business. These October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 Russian River Team Arundo Project wineries endured by producing sacramental wine and grape juice or by planting other crops. Some had pulled out their vines and others planted fruit crops between the wine rows. The wine industry in Sonoma County underwent a slow revival in the late 1930s. Many of the wineries that began producing wine immediately issued bulk wines to bottlers outside the county. Small to medium sized wineries sprang up in Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley and the Russian River area, places that had experienced limited growth in the earlier years (SCGGA Website 2003). The 1940s were tumultuous years for the California wine industry. Post-war years were characterized by severe overproduction of grapes and wine, which resulted in government-mandated programs of pro- rations and set-asides. Adversity brought a new group of winegrowers from business, commerce and industry to work beside second-generation Sonoma County wine industry pioneers. They were still in the rebuilding process when the nationwide wine boom hit in the 1960s. Orchards were pulled out and grazing land plowed under for vineyards and, for the first time, white grapes were predominant (SCGGA Website 2003). In 2000, Sonoma County ranked first in California for total grape sales with nearly $390 million in revenue from 42,200 acres of grapes. With secondary spending to suppliers and profits from wine- related tourism, the Sonoma County wine industry contributes an estimated $3 billion to the local economy, about 18% of the county's contribution to the gross domestic product (SCGGA Website 2003). Paleontologic Setting A comparison of the California Department of Fish and Game July 2002 Review Draft Map boundaries of the Russian River Watershed and published geologic maps of the area (Jennings 1977; Helley et al. 1979; and Huffman 1980) indicate that the project area will encompass two generalized rock types: Mesozoic marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks; and Cenozoic marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. Mesozoic rocks include Tertiary-Cretaceous sandstone, shale and minor conglomerate in the coastal belt of Northern California, and the Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex. Cenozoic rocks in the watershed include Pliocene sandstone, siltstone and shale, Pliocene and/or Pleistocene sandstone, shale, and gravel deposits and relict Pleistocene stream terraces. Generally, areas of high relief (hills and mountains) are composed of Mesozoic rocks, while areas of low relief (valleys and flatlands) are composed of Cenozoic rocks. The geology and paleontologic sensitivity of each rock type is presented in the next section Mesozoic Rocks Mesozoic marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks underlie the majority of the Russian River watershed. From the headwaters in the region of Redwood and Potter valleys to the north, to the beginning of the Santa Rosa Valley to the south, Mesozoic rocks bound the watershed to the north and west. The Mesozoic sedimentary rocks consist of sandstone, shale and conglomerate. The metasedimentary rocks of the Franciscan Complex consist of sandstone, shale, chert and limestone in a tectonically sheared and fractured m61ange (mixture) of rock types. Ultramafic rocks, chiefly serpentine, are also present in this mixture. Vertebrate fossils have not been recovered in the immediate vicinity of the Mesozoic rocks in the project area. Because the Mesozoic rocks have been sheared and deformed through tectonic action, the chance October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 Russian River Team Arundo Project of fossil preservation is low. Therefore, operations within the slopes underlain by Mesozoic rocks have a low sensitivity to contain fossil remains. Cenozoic Rocks Alluvial plains and valleys account for approximately 15% of the Russian River watershed. Alluvial plains and valleys crossed by the Russian River are composed primarily of Cenozoic marine and non- marine rocks. Locations closely follow the mainstem of the Russian River and range from Potter Valley and Ukiah, south through Cloverdale and Windsor. Cenozoic rocks become the dominant rock type throughout the Santa Rosa Plain. The alluvial valleys are primarily Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial, lake, and stream terrace deposits that infill and overlie older, dissected Pliocene and Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Marine Pliocene rocks consist of marine sandstone, siltstone and shale and are located primarily west of Sebastopol, and south of the mainstem of the Russian River. Pliocene to Pleistocene deposits are primarily sandstone, shale and loosely consolidated gravel deposits. These deposits are located west of Highway 101 between Santa Rosa and Healdsburg, with outcrops south of Cotati. The Plio-pleistocene non-marine deposits are cross-cut by the current tributaries of the Russian River. These tributaries include Mark West and Santa Rosa creeks as well as numerous unnamed smaller creeks. The younger, recent tributaries to the Russian River lie in channels of Quaternary alluvium. Helley et al. (1979) identified relict stream terraces perched adjacent to the current course of the Russian River and its tributaries. The stream terraces consist of moderately consolidated, deeply weathered, poorly sorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel. This Pleistocene alluvium is widely scattered throughout the southern portion of the watershed, and is geomorphically expressed as a flattened bench or terrace adjacent to the current stream course. The non-marine sediments and Pleistocene relict stream terraces have yielded vertebrate fossils. The lithology and depositional environment of the Cenozoic marine and non-marine rocks is consistent with an area that has the potential to produce more fossil finds. The Pliocene and Pleistocene marine and non-marine deposits, along with the Pleistocene relict stream terraces, are assigned a moderate sensitivity because these areas are known to contain paleontologic localities with moderately preserved, common elsewhere fossil deposits, and they have a strong, proven potential for producing fossil remains. Paleontologic Sensitivity The determination of the significance of a fossil can only occur after a fossil has been found and identified by a qualified paleontologist. Until then, the actual significance is unknown. The most useful designation for paleontologic resources is the "sensitivity" of the geologic unit. Sensitivity refers to the likelihood of finding significant fossils in a particular geologic unit. In Northern California, fossils of land-dwelling vertebrates are considered significant. Such fossils are found in fluvial and lake deposits. The following levels of sensitivity recognize the important relationship between fossils and the geologic formations within which they are preserved. · High: High sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations known to contain paleontologic localities with rare, well preserved, and/or critical fossil materials for stratigraphic or October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 Russian River Team Arundo Project paleontologic interpretation, and fossils providing important information about the paleobiology and evolutionary history of animal and plant groups. Moderate: Moderate sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations known to contain paleontologic localities with moderately preserved, common elsewhere, or stratigraphically long- ranging fossil material. The moderate sensitivity category is also applied to geologic formations that are judged to have a strong, but unproven potential for producing fossil remains (e.g. Pre- Holocene sedimentary rock units low to moderate energy, of marine or non-marine depositional environments). Low: Low sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that, based on their youthful age and/or depositional environment, are judged unlikely to produce fossil remains. Typically, low sensitivity formations may produce invertebrate fossils in low abundance. Marginal: Marginal sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that are composed of either pyroclastic volcanic rocks or metasedimentary rocks, but which nevertheless have the possibility for producing fossil remains from certain lithologies at localized outcrops. Zero: Zero sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that are entirely plutonic (igneous rocks formed beneath the earth's surface) in origin and therefore have no potential for producing fossil remains. 4.6.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The project could cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources. Portions of historical resources could be damaged and/or destroyed as a result of ground-disturbing activities due to excavation of some clumps of giant reed. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 (see below), these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. CR-1 RRTA shall appoint a Cultural Resources Specialist (CRS), or specialists, prior to the start of project-related ground disturbance with mechanized equipment, grading, or excavation activities. RRTA shall submit to the SRCD, for review and approval, the name(s) and statement of qualifications for its designated cultural resources specialist, or specialists, who will be responsible for implementation of all cultural resources mitigation measures. The statement of qualifications must be sufficient to substantiate that the CRS meets the Secretary of the Interior's proposed Historic Preservation Qualification Standards as published in the Federal Register. CR-2 Prior to the start of project activities, the CRS shall review all proposed ground-disturbing activities with mechanized equipment to determine if the proposed action would impact known or potential archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be in the area of the October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 58 Russian River Team Arundo Project proposed project, the first level of mitigation shall be to change the mode of giant reed eradication to hand removal rather than excavation. This would avoid impacts to the resource. CR-3 If ground disturbing activities with mechanized equipment at those areas identified as potentially archaeologically sensitive cannot be avoided by using another method, full-time archaeological monitoring shall occur during ground-disturbing activities. Monitoring is required within 500 feet of the boundaries of known cultural resources. Monitors must have 2 years of professional experience and be approved by the SRCD. Monitors shall be under the supervision of the CRS. A detailed project specific protocol for monitoring shall be provided and shall include an Unanticipated Discoveries of Cultural Resources Plan. Following is a synopsis of what shall be included in the plan. If cultural resources are located during monitoring, monitors shall immediately halt construction within 250 feet of the find in non-urban area, and 50 feet of the find in urban areas, and notify the CRS. The CRS shall inspect the find. The CRS shall immediately notify the SRCD Environmental Monitor. If construction personnel discover a cultural resource in the absence of a monitor, construction within 250 feet of the find shall be halted and the environmental compliance monitor contacted. Construction may begin once the CRS has completed necessary investigations and a written authorization to proceed has been issued by the SRCD. b. WouM the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Possible substantial effects could occur to unknown archaeological (prehistoric and historic) deposits from ground-disturbing activities. The project encompasses areas known to have high potential for cultural resources and other features associated with prehistoric occupation and historic settlement. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-2 (see above), these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Potential discovery or disturbance of unique paleonotological resources during ground-disturbing activities with mechanized equipment could result in a significant impact. Because significant fossil discoveries can be made in areas designated as low as well as moderate to high potential, ground-disturbing activities could possibly unearth significant paleontological resources. While this is unlikely, should such resources be encountered, this would be a significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-3 (above) and CR-4 (below), this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. CR-4 In the event that fossil remains are encountered, either by the cultural resources monitor or by project personnel, qualified paleonotogical specialists shall be contacted. Project activities within 100 feet of the find in non-urban areas and 50 feet in urban areas shall be temporarily October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 Russian River Team Arundo Project halted or diverted until a qualified vertebrate paleontologist examines the discovery. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies and the SRCD Environmental Monitor to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. a[ Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Possible substantial effects may occur to human burials from ground-disturbing activities. This could include burials of prehistoric remains or non-Indian pioneers. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4 (above) as well as Mitigation Measure CR-5 (below), this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. CR-5 The CRS shall develop an Unanticipated Discoveries of Human Remains Plan. Following is a synopsis of what shall be included in the plan. If human remains are found at any time during project-level vegetation clearance; ground disturbance and grading; site or project mobilization; site preparation or excavation activities; implementation of erosion control measures; or the movement or parking of vehicles or other equipment onto or over the project surface, all work shall immediately stop within 250 feet of the find in non-urban areas and 100 feet of the find in urban areas. The CRS shall be notified immediately and shall, in turn, immediately notify the county coroner for the appropriate county in compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and notify the SRCD Environmental Monitor. Upon the completion of compliance with all relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code and the conditions of the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Human Remains, the CRS shall implement Mitigation Measure CR-2. 4.7 Geology and Soils Information used in preparing this section was derived from a Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the proposed project, which included numerous sources of data and research (Garcia and Associates, 2004). 4.7.1 Setting The Russian River is predominantly underlain by the Franciscan formation, a m61ange of Jurassic- Cretaceous age, formed at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean over 100 million years ago. Franciscan sediments consist of a jumbled mass of muddy sandstones and cherts interlayered with basalt lava flows-crumpled sea floor sediments that form the bulk of the Coast Range. The Franciscan lithology is very unstable and landslides are common throughout most mountain regions within the basin (CDFG 2002). Elevations within the basin range from sea level at the mouth to 4,344 feet at the summit of Mt. Saint Helena in the Mayacamas Mountains to the east. Historic lava flows associated with Sonoma Mountain may have contributed to the isolation of the Russian River from the Petaluma and Sonoma rivers October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 60 Russian River Team Arundo Project (Hopkirk 1974). The river passes through a series of broad alluvial valleys and narrow bedrock constrictions along its course. Alluvial regions bordering the mainstem include the Ukiah and Hopland valleys in Mendocino County, and Alexander Valley and the Santa Rosa Plain in Sonoma County. The area within the basin consists of 85% hills and mountains and a mere 15% alluvial valleys (SEC 1996). Present drainage patterns in the Russian River region are similar to drainage patterns for the North Coast Ranges and are the result of Pleistocene down-faulting (Hopkirk 1974). Faulting in the North Coast Ranges generally follows northwest to southeast orientation, and thus many streams (including the upper run of the Russian River) follow this orientation. With the onset of the Wisconsin glacial epoch, sea level changes combined with down-warping along the coast contributed to flow pattern changes as southeasterly flowing rivers of the area were redirected westward (Hopkirk 1974). Eventually the headwaters of the upper Russian River became the headwaters of the Eel, Navarro and Gualala river systems. Perhaps the most striking character of the Russian River drainage is the mainstem's sharp mm to the west near its confluence with Mark West Creek, where "After following for fifty miles its regular southeasterly course to Santa Rosa Valley, it turns away from this flat and uninterrupted alluvial plain which opens directly to San Francisco Bay, and flows westward to the ocean through twenty miles of rugged canyon, winding through a highland that varies from eight hundred to twelve hundred feet in elevation (Holw~y 1913)." Holway, in his 1913 paper, hypothesizes that a likely explanation for this is "that the transverse portion of the river from the open valley through the highland was antecedent to, and persisted through, the uplift which made the highland." Historically, the waters of Clear Lake drained through two outflowing streams. Westward flows passed through Cold Creek into the Russian River, while Cache Creek drained the eastern side of the Clear Lake Basin with flows eventually joining the Sacramento River. Flows from Cache Creek were eventually cut off by lava flows and water from Cache Creek joined with that from Cold Creek to flow into the Russian River (Hopkirk 1974). It is believed that within the past few centuries, however, a large landslide plugged the western Clear Lake outflow, isolating the lake from the Russian River basin (Alt 1975) and reestablished flows into Cache Creek through a sag in the lava flow near the mouth of Cache Creek. Present geology provides for the continued drainage of Clear Lake through its eastern outlet. Historic flows from Clear Lake into both the Russian River and the Sacramento system explain why the fish assemblage in the Russian River today is so similar to that of the Sacramento system. Both Mendocino and Sonoma Counties have important agricultural soils that make them highly productive agricultural areas. It is very important to protect these soil resources through the implementation of proper excavation practices and erosion controls. 4.7.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures This impact assessment uses a qualitative analysis to address geologic hazards, primary and secondary effects of earthquakes, and soil resources. Since no structures would be constructed for this project, worker and public safety in regards to geologic hazards would not occur. Loss of soil resources due to erosion from project construction could occur without implementation of the associated mitigation measures. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 Russian River Team Arundo Project Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any habitable structures or other features that would be exposed to ground shaking. Therefore, impacts from ground shaking hazards would not be expected to occur. b. WouM the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project would remove large quantities of giant reed throughout thc Russian River watershed and could result in some temporary soil instability. However, with thc implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and GEO- 2 (below), thc impact would bc reduced to less than significant. Ground disturbing activities for giant reed removal will be minimal since most of thc removal will be performed by hand. Also, because the proposed project involves revcgctation with native plant species, any temporary effects of soil instability caused by thc removal of giant reed arc considered to bc less than significant because thc reestablishment of vegetation would ultimately stabilize the soil (see Mitigation Measure BIO-7). GEO-I: All exposed/disturbed areas within the project site shall be stabilized to the greatest extent possible. Erosion control measures, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock lined ditches, water check bars, and broadcasted straw shall be used where silt-laden water has the potential to leave the work site and enter State waters. Modifications, repairs and improvements to erosion control measures shall be made whenever needed. GEO-2: No phase of the project may be started if that phase and its associated erosion control measures cannot be completed prior to the onset of a storm event if that construction phase may cause the introduction of sediments into the stream. Seventy-two-hour weather forecasts from the National Weather Service shall be consulted prior to start up of any phase of the project that may result in sediment runoff to the stream. c. Would the project be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As stated above, the proposed project would remove large quantities of giant reed throughout thc Russian River watershed and may result in some soil instability. However, because thc proposed project involves revcgctation with native plant species, any temporary effects of soil instability caused by thc removal of giant reed arc considered to bc less than significant because thc reestablishment of vegetation would ultimately stabilize thc soil (sec Mitigation Measures BIO-6 and BIO-7). Also, ground- disturbing activities for giant reed removal will be minimal since most of the removal will be performed by hand. With thc implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (above), thc associated impacts would bc less than significant. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 Russian River Team Arundo Project a[ Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? NO IMPACT. No structures will be constructed for the proposed project. No impacts would occur. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater ? NO IMPA CT. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will be installed as part of the proposed project. No impacts would occur. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.8.1 Setting and Introduction The primary concerns for the proposed project, in regards to hazardous materials, are worker safety and public safety. Exposure to hazardous materials could be possible through handling of hazardous materials or accidental spill during construction activities. Implementation of the proposed project would involve the use of some herbicide treatments, using a glyphosate-based herbicide. For the risks associated with glyphosate-based herbicides to people, a dose of 2 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) has been determined by the EPA to be the chronic reference dose (RfD) for glyphosate (U.S. Forest Service, 2002). The RfD means that a person could receive a dose of 2 mg/kg/day throughout everyday of his or her life without an adverse health effect. Short-term or acute exposures above the chronic RfD can occur without any known adverse health effect. The estimated lethal dose ofglyphosate in humans is 445 mg/kg/day (U.S. Forest Service, 2002). Thus, a 150-pound (73 kilogram) person would need to be exposed to 32,485 mg of glyphosate in a single day to achieve a lethal dose. 4.8.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project would not require long-term storage, treatment, disposal, or transport of significant quantities of hazardous material; however, small quantities of hazardous materials would bc stored, used, and handled during implementation of thc project. HAZ-1 All herbicide applications would be completed or supervised by a Qualified Licensed Applicator permitted by the Department of Pesticide Regulation to ensure that specific safety measures, including containment and clean-up plans in the event of an accidental spill or leak of the herbicide are followed. All workers involved with herbicide October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 Russian River Team Arundo Project application shall receive training in herbicide application from the Qualified Licensed Applicator. HAZ-2 All workers involved with herbicide application shall wear appropriate protective clothing and related safety equipment (masks, gloves, etc.). HAZ-3 Clean water and soap shall be readily available on site for the purposes of emergency washing. HAZ-4 Prior to and during vegetation clearing and herbicide applications on public property, active work areas shall be marked and signs shall be clearly posted along all access points to the site to minimize the public's potential exposure to hazardous materials. These signs would discourage public use or other unauthorized use of the site for a minimum of two weeks after any herbicide application. Prior to any project activities, work crews would survey the site to ensure that no unauthorized persons are present. HAZ-5 No herbicide application shall take place when wind velocities exceed six (6) mph to minimize potential herbicide drift. b. WouM the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Procedures of proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste are established by federal, State, and local regulations. RRTA will train project personnel in the handling of such materials prior to the start of project activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 (see above), and Mitigation Measures ItAZ-6 through HAZ-8 (see below), which are designed to ensure proper labeling, storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Prevention Plan and prepare a Health and Safety Plan, would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. HAZ-6 RRTA shall ensure proper labeling, storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials in accordance with best management practices and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's HAZWOPER requirements. RRTA shall ensure that all employees are properly trained in the use and handling of these materials and that each material is accompanied by a material safety data sheet (MSDS) deemed adequate by the SRCD. Additionally, RRTA shall submit a written plan to the SRCD prior to project activities outlining how to respond if hazardous materials are unexpectedly encountered. The plan shall specify identification, handling, reporting, and disposal of hazardous materials. HAZ-7 A Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Prevention Plan shall be developed and submitted to the SRCD for review and approval prior to the start of project activities. The purpose of the plan is to provide on-site project managers, environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with a detailed description of hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and spill response/cleanup measures associated October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 64 Russian River Team Arundo Project with the project. The primary objective of the plan is to prevent the spill of hazardous materials; the plan shall be given to all project managers and sub-contractors working on the project. At least one copy shall be on-site with the project manager at all times. The plan shall include the following: Definition of staging areas where refueling, storage, and maintenance of equipment will take place. Such areas shall not be located within 100 feet of drainages or any other body of water, or wetlands or riparian areas, to reduce the potential of contamination by spills. · During project activities, equipment shall be maintained and kept in good operating conditions to reduce the likelihood of line breaks and leakage. · Fluids drained from machinery during services at staging areas shall be collected in leak-proof containers and disposed of at appropriate disposal or recycling facilities. · No refueling or servicing shall be done without absorbent material (e.g., absorbent pads, mats, socks, pillows, and granules) or drip pans underneath to contain spilled material. · Definition of spill control and countermeasures, including but not limited to employee spill prevention/response training and a description of onsite cleanup equipment (e.g., absorbent pads, mats, socks, granules, etc.) available at staging and project sites. · Resource agency notification and documentation procedures. HAZ-8 RRTA shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan that includes a contingency plan for hazardous materials and waste operations. Before project activities could proceed, RRTA shall submit the plan to the SRCD for review and approval, and once approved shall send the plan to each agency with jurisdiction. The Health and Safety Plan, applicable to all work activities, shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by hazardous wastes. The plan shall be prepared according to federal and California OSHA regulations for hazardous waste sites. This Health and Safety Plan shall also provide for proper storage and/or disposal of any contaminated soils that meet the definition of a hazardous waste. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT tVITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. No hazardous long-term emissions would be generated by the proposed project. During the life of the project, project personnel would follow all institutional controls governing the storage, transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-8 are recommended to ensure minimal risk of an accidental release of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes, as described in 4.8.2 above. Therefore, potential impacts to existing or proposed schools are less than significant. a[ Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 Russian River Team Arundo Project LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-9 (below), a database list search would bc performed for all proposed sites where excavation of giant rccd will take place in order to locate areas that may bc viewed as potential areas of hazardous materials contamination or locations where it is permitted to perform various hazardous waste activities. . HAZ-9 A list search of known State and federal hazardous waste sites and leaking underground tanks within 1,000 feet of an excavation site shall be conducted prior to project activities to identify high-risk areas, where a moderate or high potential for encountering contaminated soil or groundwater may exist during shallow (6 feet or less) excavations. If known hazardous waste sites are found near a planned excavation site, the mode of giant reed removal will be changed to hand removal as to not disturb contaminated soils. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? NO IMPA CT. There would be no resultant structures that would impair airport operations or endanger other land uses. No impact would occur. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. NO IMPACT. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the surrounding area. No equipment or construction materials would be left accessible to the public once construction activities cease for the day. No impact would occur. g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would possibly use some light machinery, however, all work would be done off of public right-of-ways (ROW) and therefore would not impede an emergency response plan. No impact would occur. h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPA CT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORA TED. The project site is within a moderate to high fire hazard area; however, removal of thc giant rccd would decrease thc existing fuel load level in thc area. This reduced risk with respect to fire hazard would result in a beneficial impact. During project activities, thc RRTA will implement a Fire Prevention Plan described in Mitigation Measure (HAZ-10) to reduce impact levels to less than significant. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 66 Russian River Team Arundo Project HAZ-IO RRTA shall develop and implement a Fire Prevention Plan to minimize the risk of starting a fire to less than significant levels. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.9.1 setting The Russian River watershed is an important water resource for California. It not only provides drinking water for much of the north coast, but also supplies agriculture with necessary water for irrigation, provides fish spawning habitat for three federally listed species, and supports riparian habitats which therefore support many species of plants and animals - some of which are endemic to the area. Therefore, federal, State, and local governments, as well as citizen groups, believe it is important to protect our water resources. The proposed project intends to enhance the riparian zone along the Russian River watershed, which would in turn, benefit hydrology and water quality. 4.9.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Ve~ITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There is the potential for sediment-laden or polluted runoff to enter nearby waterways, thus increasing turbidity, increasing channel siltation, reduction of water quality and degradation of aquatic habitat. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (see Section 4.7.2) and Mitigation Measure WQ-1 presented below, this potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. WQ-1 Prior to the commencement of project activities at any particular site, RRTA shall provide the SRCD with an outline of the BMPs that will be used during project activities at that location. The BMPs shall be approved by the SRCD prior to the start of project activities to ensure that the potential for discharge into surface waters during giant reed removal is minimized. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials associated with the proposed project construction would include substances such as gasoline and diesel fuels, engine oil, hydraulic fluids, and herbicide. Accidental spills of these substances could contaminate drainages, soils, wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive areas. Although the potential for such a spill and release would be low, it nonetheless would represent a potentially significant impact. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-7 (see Section 4.8), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 Russian River Team Ar'undo Project NO IMPACT. The proposed project does not involve the use of groundwater for any project activities, therefore there would be no negative impact on the depletion of groundwater resources. Giant reed has been shown to use excessive amounts of water, therefore, the removal of the Arundo will be beneficial to groundwater supplies. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project could potentially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site that could then result in substantial erosion or siltation. However, the proposed project would be phased over several years starting at the northern tributaries of the Russian River watershed working south. In the case of a large site with large quantities of giant reed, removal and restoration of the site would be phased by dividing the site into sub-sections. This would reduce disturbance at the site, which would reduce erosion and sedimentation as well as flooding. Also, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (see Section 4.7.2), and the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 (see Section 4.5.2), the impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-site or off-site? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As discussed above, the proposed project would be phased over several years starting at the northern tributaries of the Russian River watershed working south. In the case of a large site with large quantities of giant reed, removal and restoration of the site would be phased by dividing the site into sub-sections. This would reduce disturbance at the site, which would reduce erosion and sedimentation as well as flooding. Also, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (see Section 4.7.2), and the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 (see Section 4.5.2), the impact would be less than significant. e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not utilize existing or planned storm water drainage systems. All disturbed areas would be restored with native plants and runoff would drain as sheet flow and be allowed either to percolate or to flow into temporary storm water management structures. Therefore, no impact would occur. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Mitigation Measure WQ-1 would protect water quality during project activities. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 68 Russian River Team Arundo Project g. WouM the project place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not include the construction or placement of housing within a 100-year floodplain. No impact would occur. h. Would the project place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not include structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not cause or contribute to the failure of a dam or levee. As the project does not include structures that would house or accommodate people, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. j. WouM the project contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur. 4.10 Land Use 4.10.1Setting Both Sonoma and Mendocino Counties have adopted General Plans that specify land use throughout the counties. Land uses throughout the entire proposed project area vary substantially, ranging from agricultural to residential to commercial. Most of the giant reed removal will be performed by hand. However, in the unlikely event of excavation activities, local grading permits may be necessary for ground disturbing activities. Those permits address soil disturbance and the need to comply with traffic management along the public ROW. Other ordinances govern the time when construction is permitted. Section 3.4 discusses additional regulatory requirements for the proposed project. 4.10.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. WouM the project physically divide an established community? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 Russian River Team Arundo Project b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? NO IMPACT. The proposed project has been supported by federal, State and local agencies as being necessary to eliminate the invasive of non-native giant reed and restore riparian habitat along the Russian River watershed. The proposed project does not conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NO IMPACT. Since the proposed project is utilizing the principles of local habitat conservation plans, the project is not expected to conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No impact would occur. 4.11 Mineral Resources 4.11.1 Setting Sonoma and Mendocino Counties have a history of mineral resources extraction that goes back a century. Some mineral resources continue to be mined, such as aggregate (crushed rock) and limestone for concrete production. Gravel mining also continues on gravel bars in the Russian River. 4.11.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not include construction of building structures or hard- scaping any areas. The proposed project would remove giant reed, allowing access to aggregate resources. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist. No impacts would occur. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? NO IMPACT. As stated above, the proposed project would not include construction of building structures or hard-scaping any areas. Therefore, there would be no loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 Russian River Team Arundo Project 4.12 Noise 4.12.1 Introduction Generally, federal and State agencies regulate mobile noise sources, by establishing and enforcing noise standards on vehicle manufacturers. Local agencies generally regulate stationary noise sources and construction activities in order to protect neighboring land uses and the general public's health and welfare. Noise-related policies are usually adopted in the local government's general plan and usually regulate construction noise levels and time of operations. 4.12.2 Setting The proposed project would generate very little noise as the only equipment to be used occasionally would be a single backhoe and/or a dump track. Because removal of giant reed is expected to move quickly, construction noise at any one location would typically be audible for only one day or part of one day. 4./2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORA TED. The project would primarily involve temporary noise sources associated with construction. Implementation of thc following Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce thc impact to less than significant. NOI-1 As directed by any local jurisdiction, RRTA shall implement appropriate noise mitigation measures to comply with the applicable local noise ordinance including, but not limited to, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling project activities, notifying residents in advance of project work, or installing acoustic barriers around stationary project noise sources. b. Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impact would occur. c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? NO IMPACT. The project would only require short-term maintenance of the native plants by manual hand-labor which would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. No impact would occur. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 Russian River Team Arundo Project d. tVould the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Project activities would result in a temporary increase in noise. With Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (above), the temporary impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. e. For a project located Within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? NO IMPACT. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use area. No impact would occur. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise? NO IMPACT. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur. 4.13 Population and Housing 4.13.1 Setting The proposed project passes through many different types of land uses, one of them being residential. RRTA proposes to work with landowners in the effort to remove giant reed from the Russian River watershed. 4.13.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? NO IMPACT. No houses, roads or other infrastructure will be constructed as a part of the proposed project. No impacts will occur. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? NO IMPACT. Construction staging activities for the proposed project would utilize existing vineyard staging areas or private ROW yards and roads. These areas would not contain any housing units, and would not result in the displacement of any existing housing. Therefore, no project impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 Russian River Team Arundo Project c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not result in or include the construction or demolition of structures that could house people. Therefore, people would not be displaced and replacement housing would not be necessary as a result of the proposed project. No impacts would occur. 4.14 Public Services 4.14.1 Setting As described in Section 3.3 of the Project Description, the proposed project includes the removal of giant reed along the Russian River watershed and restoration with native plants. The project spans two counties and runs through many different local jurisdictions. The proposed project would not create significant additional public service needs. In general, public services are provided by local agencies. Fire and police protection are provided by either city-wide or county-wide departments. School districts usually define their boundaries by population and age densities of their students. Other public services, such as libraries, are provided by local agencies as needed and as funds allow. 4.14.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, I~ould the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Fire protection services could potentially be required at a project site in the event of an accident. The likelihood of an accident requiring such a response would be low. The service capacities of city and/or county fire departments in which potential accidents could occur would not be affected. Since the potential for a project related accident is low and the respective fire departments are prepared to respond to accidents across their jurisdictions, this would represent a less than significant impact. (ii) Police Protection? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would not have a significant long-term impact on public services. Any potential short-term project impacts to emergency service providers would be less than significant. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 Russian River Team Arundo Project (iii) Schools? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not create an increase in population or in-migration. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause an increased demand on existing schools and no new schools would be required because of the project. No impact would occur. (iv) Parks? NO IMPACT. Portions of the proposed project will be in State and regional parks. However, no population growth or in-migration would occur because of the project. Therefore, no new services would be required in the parks because of the project. No impact would occur. (v) Other Public Facilities? NO IMPACT. No population growth or in-migration would occur because of the project. Therefore, no new public services would be required. No impact would occur. 4.15 Recreation 4.15.1 Setting The project area encompasses several recreational lands. facilities in the proposed project area include: · California State Parks and Recreation · Regional Parks · City Parks Notable agencies governing recreational 4.15.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures t~ Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? NO IMPACT. Population growth in an area is generally the reason for increased use of recreational facilities. As described in Section 4.13 (Population and Housing), the proposed project would not cause a population increase or in-migration. Therefore, no impact would occur. b. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? NO IMPACT. The proposed project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 Russian River Team Arundo Project c. Would the project result in permanent and/or temporary impacts, such as possible disruption of recreational activities, affecting the recreational value of existing facilities ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As described in Section 4.8, construction activities and the application of herbicide would limit access temporarily to some recreational areas. However, with thc implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4 and REC- 1, thc impact would bc less than significant. REC-1 RRTA shall schedule project activities to avoid peak use periods (e.g., weekends and holidays) for recreational facilities. Onsite notification of recreational access closures shall be provided at least 2 weeks in advance, through the posting of signs and/or notices. 4.16 Transportation and Traffic 4.16.1 Setting Caltrans is responsible for managing and maintaining State and Interstate highways. Cities and counties are responsible for all other roads within their boundaries. The proposed project would not encroach into any public right-of-ways (ROW). Project crews would utilize public roads to travel to and from the project sites. 4.16.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on the roads, or congestion at intersections) ? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would require crews to be transported to and from project locations. Crews would carpool to thc project locations and would not bc utilizing mom than four vehicles at a time throughout both counties. Therefore, thc impact would bc less than significant. b. Would the project cause, either individually or cumulatively, a level-of-service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways to be exceeded? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As stated above, the proposed project would require crews to be transported to and from project locations. Crews would carpool to the project locations and would not be utilizing more than four vehicles at a time throughout both counties. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 Russian River Team Arundo Project NO IMPACT. The proposed project does not involve aircraft activities and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. d. Would the project substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not be located on any public right-of-ways (ROW). No impact would occur. e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? NO IMPACT. As stated above, the proposed project would not be located on any public right-of-ways (ROW) and would not impede emergency access to a location. No impact would occur. f. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not interfere with public or private parking areas. No impact would occur. g. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not be located on any public right-of-ways (ROW). No impact would occur. 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.17.1 Setting The proposed project would not involve the use of electricity or natural gas. All site work would be conducted using hand labor and fuel-powered equipment. Also, the proposed project would not involve the establishment of, or require communication lines. 4.17.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not generate wastewater. Therefore, the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCBs would not be exceeded. No impacts would occur. b. Would the project require, or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 Russian River Team Arundo Project NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not generate wastewater and would require only a minor amount of water for dust suppression during project activities and watering of native plants. Therefore, the proposed project would not require, or result in the construction of, new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur. c. Would the project require, or result in the construction of, new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not create new impermeable surfaces that would substantially increase drainage runoff' beyond current conditions. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities. No impact would occur. t~ Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would require temporary maintenance of native plants. The watering of native plants would be provided by landowners, who have existing water resources, or brought onto the site by RRTA. Native plants require very little water and would only be watered temporarily. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the proposed project that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments ? NO IMPA CT. The proposed project would not require wastewater treatment. No impact would occur. f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs ? NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not generate solid waste that could not be recycled. No impact would occur. g. Would the project comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NO IMPACT. As stated above, the proposed project would not generate solid waste that could not be recycled. No impact would occur. 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance The CEQA Environmental Checklist presents the following three issues for which a finding of a significant impact would result in requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report: October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 Russian River Team Arundo Project (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As documented in Appendix A (Environmental Checklist), the IS/MND concluded that, with implementation of the mitigation measures included herein, impacts in each of the three categories would be less than significant. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 Russian River Team Arundo Project 5. Notice of Determination Notice of Determination TO: County Clerk FROM: Sonoma County 2300 County Center B-177 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Sotoyome Resource Conservation District P.O. Box 11526 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 SUB.]ECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Giant Reed (',4rundo donax,)Removal and Riparian Habitat Restoration in the Russian River Watershed. Contact Person: Kerry Williams: (707) 569-1448 Project Location: Thc project sites are along the main stem of thc Russian River in Mcndocino and Sonoma County as well as tributaries to the Russian River. Project Description: The invasion by giant reed is contributing to the decline of Russian River riparian habitat- a critical habitat type upon which salmonids and many other wildlife species depend. The project proposes to cut the giant reed at the rootstock using hand tools and remove it from the stream zone. Mechanized equipment may be used in locations where hand removal is not possible. The remaining biomass will be removed by hand or covered with tarps or a thick pond liner for approximately 6 months in order to kill the invasive species. Some of the biomass that cannot be tarped because of location will be painted on the stumps with glyphosate herbicide. Removal of giant reed by this method will take place in the summer and fall months when the cut and paint method has the highest ,4rundo mortality rate and the bird nesting season is over. Wherever possible, methods other than herbicide shall be used to eliminate giant reed. After the giant reed has been determined to be dead in an area, native plant restoration will take place. This is to advise that the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District has approved the above- described project on October 14, 2004 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: . . . . The project- will, Xwill not have a significant impact on the environment. __ An Environmental Tmpact Report was prepared for this pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures __ were, X__ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. A statement of Overriding Considerations was, __ was not adopted for this project. Findings were, ~ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 Russian River Team Arundo Project This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Sotoyome RCD office, 970 Piner Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. Oriqinal $(qned bi/Ron Roi/er/ .10/.15/04 Article II. Signature (Public Agency) Title President Date October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 80 Russian River Team Arundo Project 6. REFERENCES Alt, David D. and Hyndman, Donald W. 1975 Roadside Geology of Northern California. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana. Barrett, S.A. 1908. The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1): 1-332. Berkeley. Behler, John L. and F. Wayne King. 1979. FieM Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York, NY. Best, Catherine, et al. 1996. ,4 Flora of Sonoma County: Manual of Flowering Plants and Ferns of Sonoma County, California. Califomia Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 2002. Russian River Basin Fisheries Restoration Plan. Sacramento, California. California State Parks. 2004. California State Parks - Find a Park website, http://www.parks.ca.gov/ Accessed August 2004. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2003. Caltrans California Scenic Highway Program website, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/scpr.htm Accessed August 2004. California Native Plant Society. Invasive Exotics. http://www.cnps.org/conservation/exotics.htm Accessed July 2004. 1997. CNPS Manual of California Vegetation On-line. Amended February 2000. http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/index.html Accessed August 2004. Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., et al. June, 2002. Invasion Status, Impacts and Effective Control of Arundo donax in the Russian River Watershed. Final Report to the Sonoma County Water Agency Fisheries Enhancement Program (FEP Grants 1999 and 2000). County of Mendocino. 1981. Mendocino County General Plan website. September 1981. Amended. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/planning/GenPian/GPContents.htm Accessed May 2004. County of Sonoma. 1989. Sonoma County General Plan website. March 1989. Amended. http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/gp2020/elements.html Accessed May 2004. Davis, Richard C. ed. 1983. Encyclopedia of American Forest and Conservation History. MacMillan Publishing Company, Omaha. Dillon, Brian D., and Richard H. Dillon. 1993. Timberland Historical Archaeology Notes 3: A Brief October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $1 Russian River Team Arundo Project History of Logging in California. Prepared for California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Dowdall, Katherine M. and Thomas M. Origer. 1997 A View of Crescents from Sonoma County. Paper presented at the 31 st Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Rohnert Park. Ehrlich, Paul R., et al. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Fireside. New York, NY. Ferguson, Ruby Alta. 1931. The Historical Development of the Russian River Valley, 1579-1865. Dissertation. Fredrickson, D.A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A view from the North Coast Ranges. The Journal of California Anthropology, 1 (1):41-54. 1984 The North Coastal Region. In California Archaeology, edited by M.J. Moratto, pp. 471- 527. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando. Garcia and Associates. 2004. Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Russian River WatershedArundo Removal Project. Prepared for Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. August. San Anselmo, California. Hansen, Harvey J. and Thurlow Miller. 1962. Wild Oats in Eden: Sonoma County in the 19th Century. Santa Rosa, CA. Helley, E.J., Lajoie, K.R., Spangle, W.E., and Blair, M.L. 1979. Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California - Their geology and engineering properties, and their importance to comprehensive planning. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943, 88 p., map scale 1:125,000. Hickman, J., ed. 1993. The depson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Holway, Ruliff Stephen. 1913. The Russian River, A Characteristic Stream of the California Coast Ranges. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Hopkirk, J.D. 1974. Endemism in Fishes of the Clear Lake Region of Central California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Huffman, M.E., and Armstrong, C.F. 1980. Geology for Planning in Sonoma County. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 120, 3 lp. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $2 Russian River Team Arundo Project Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., Rogers, T.H. 1977. Geologic Map of California, Map no. 2. California Geologic Data Map Series, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, map scale 1:750,000. Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. McLendon, S. and R.L. Oswalt. 1978. Pomo: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 274-288. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Miller, V.C. 1972. Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Origer, Thomas M. and David A. Fredrickson. 1980. The Laguna Archaeological Research Project, Sonoma County. Report prepared for the Public Works Department, City of Santa Rosa. Report prepared by the Cultural Resources Facility, Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University. Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society: The Sibley Guide to Birds. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York, NY. Smith, Gladys L., Clare R. Wheeler. 1992. A Flora of the Vascular Plants of Mendocino County, California. University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Sonoma County Grape Growers Association (SCGGA) Website. 2003 (July). Sonoma County's Wine History. http ://www.sonomagrapevine.org/pages/vineyardviews/vvhistorv.html Steiner Environmental Consulting (SEC). 1996. A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River. Potter Valley, California. Stewart, Omer C. 1943. Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. Coyote Press. Salinas, California. Stewart, S.B. 1985. Time Before Time: Prehistoric andArchaeology in the Lake Sonoma Area. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento. Stindt, Fred A. 1974. Trains to the Russian River. Private Printing. Kelseyville, California. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2002. Environmental Assessment of Eradication of Arundo donax in Big Tujunga Canyon. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Angeles National Service. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. March. VCWPD (Ventura County Watershed Protection District). 2003. Casitas Springs Arundo donax Removal Project Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the VCWPD. Prepared by Aspen Environmental Group. May. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $3 Russian River Team Arundo Project Wilson, Simone. 1990. Sonoma County: River of Time. American Historical Press. Sun Valley, Califomia. Withington, Jack. 2000. Historical Buildings of Sonoma County: A Pictorial Story of Yesterday's Rural Structures. 3rd Wing Press, Penngrove, CA. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $4 Russian River Team Arundo Project 7. REPORT PREPARATION AND GLOSSARY Table 7-1 List of Preparers Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Project Manager Project Manager Project Description Biological Resources Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems Document Production Graphics Kara Heckert, Project Manager Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Rose Roberts, Nursery Manager Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Karen Gaffney, Dir. of Ecological Services Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Rocky Thompson, Restoration Planner Jody Fessler, Environmental Specialist Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Daniel Hart, M.A., R.P.A. Garcia and Associates Jody Fessler, Environmental Specialist Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Kara Heckert, Project Manager Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Kara Heckert, Project Manager Katherine Gledhill, Watershed Planning Mgr. Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 Russian River Team Arundo Project Table 7-3 Glossary. of Acronyms ACOE AQMP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Air Quality Management Plan BACM BAMP BMP Best Available Control Measures Best Available Management Practices Best Management Practice Cai-OSHA California CCR California CDFG California CEQA California CESA California CNDDB California CNPS California CRHR CRS Occupational Safety and Health Administration Code of Regulations Department of Fish and Game Environmental Quality Act Endangered Species Act Natural Diversity Database Native Plant Society California Register of Historical Resources Cultural Resource Specialist DFG DNL California Department of Fish and Game Day-Night Average Noise Level EPA ESA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Endangered Species Act IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP MND NAHC NEPA NHPA NMFS NOI NOx NRHP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration Native American Heritage Commission National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act National Marine Fisheries Service Notice of Intent Nitrogen Oxides Natural Register of Historic Places ROW RRTA RWQCB SHPO Right-of-way Russian River Team Arundo Regional Water Quality Control Board State Office of Historic Preservation USDA USFWS U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 86 Russian River Team Arundo Project Appendix A Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Giant Reed (Arundo donax) Removal and Riparian Habitat Restoratation in the Russian River Watershed 2. Lead agency name and address: Sotoyome Resource Conservation District 970 Piner Road Santa Rosa, CA 95403 3. Contact person and phone number: Kerry Williams, District Manager (707) 569-1448 4. Project location: The project sites are along the main stem of the Russian River in Mendocino and Sonoma County as well as tributaries to the Russian River. 5. Project sponsor's name and addreSs: Russian River Team Arundo c/o Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. 9619 Old Redwood Hwy. Windsor, CA 95492 6. General plan designation: See Section 4.10 7. Zoning: See Section 4.10 (Land Use) (Land Use) 8. Description of project: See Section 3 (Project Description) 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: See Section 3 (Project Description) and 4.10 (Land Use) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Department of Fish and Game will need to approve a 1602 permit. A representative from the Army Corp of Engineers has been contacted about giant reed removal using both the cut and paint method and tarping. Both of these methods would not require a Army Corp 404 permit. (per conversation with Peter Straub, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (415) 977-8443, 1/30/2004) October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration $7 Russian River Team Arundo Project ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources X Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils X Hazards & Hazardous X Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Materials Quality Mineral Resources X Noise Population / Housing Public Services X Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 88 Russian River Team Arundo Project I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Sotoyome Resource Conservation District October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing X visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing X October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 90 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct . X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil X that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS B Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 94 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or X physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water X which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 96 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE B Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 98 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? c) Would the project result in permanent and/or temporary impacts, such as possible disruption of recreational activities, affecting the recreational value of existing facilities? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 13 Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Sotoyome Resource Conservation District? b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 100 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ' X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 Russian River Team Arundo Project Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 102 Russian River Team Arundo Project APPENDIX B Methods of Mapping Main Stem Mapping The procedures listed below describe methods used to determine the extent ofArundo donax invasion occurring within the riparian zone along the mainstem Russian River. As part of this project Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP) mapped the extent of the giant reed invasion using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software ArcView GIS version 3.1, donated by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), Environmental Conservation Program. Main stem river reaches were defined as follows: 1. Lower Reach, Sonoma County: mouth of Russian River to the Wohler Bridge 2. Middle Reach, Sonoma County: Wohler Bridge to Healdsburg Hwy. 101 bridge 3. Fitch Mountain Reach, Sonoma County: Healdsburg, Hwy. 101 bridge to Alexander Valley bridge 4. Alexander Valley Reach, Sonoma County: Alexander Valley bridge to the Sonoma-Mendocino county boundary 5. Mendocino County Reach: Sonoma-Mendocino county boundary to Tomki bridge in Redwood Valley USGS Digital Orthogonal Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQ) were used as base maps for the project, for the rastor-format underlay for display of the final mapped stands of Arundo, as well as for the calibration of the unrectified low-level Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan aerial photos. Sonoma and Mendocino County USGS DOQQ were developed from 1993 National Aerial Photography Program imagery (1:40,000 photo scale). The project 3.75-minute DOQQ are in the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system on the North American Datum of 1983 and have a ground pixel distance of 1 meter. The Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan aerial photos provided the most detailed, recent and consistent imagery coverage of the mainstem Russian River for photo-interpretation and digitizing individual stands of Arundo. Though these aerial photos were not orthogonally rectified, the terrain within the floodplain study area is relatively level and the mapping results are considered acceptable for purposes of natural resources planning. The set of ARM Plan aerial photographs used in this study were taken by Delta Geomatics, Inc., May 1999, at a scale of 1:4,800. Mylar enlargements of the original photographs, were produced by Delta Geomatics, Inc. for the Middle Reach, Alexander Reach and much of the Fitch Mountain Reach, at a scale of 1:2,400; and reproduced using blueprinting processes. These blue-line prints were used to delineate Arundo feature boundaries, augmented by low level aerial photographs taken by CRP. Arundo polygons not clearly seen in the photographs were identified on the map for future field editing. In the fall/winter months of 1998, low-level fixed wing aircraft test flights were conducted to determine the best film type, weather conditions, season, photo angle, and plane flight altitude for photographing Arundo in a riparian setting. Both banks of the 115 mile long Russian River mainstem were photographed during several low level flights conducted during the winter months (Jan./Feb. 1999), when riparian plant species were dormant, providing the clearest view of Arundo stands. Attempts were taken to photograph during overcast weather to avoid shadow effect. A series of sequential, October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 Russian River Team Arundo Project overlapping photographs was taken for both banks, at an approximate altitude of 500 feet, at a 45 degree angle, using Kodak Gold color film. The above mentioned photographs were used to enhance monoscopic photo interpretation of the ARM Plan low-level aerial photo coverage (May 1999) of the Alexander Valley, Fitch Mountain and Middle reaches of the Russian River in Sonoma County. The ARM Plan aerial photo coverage was registered to the digital 1:12,000 USGS DOQQ base maps with a minimum of five control points for each blue-line aerial photo enlargement using the projective transformation routine in AutoCAD Release 12.0. Manual digitizing ofArundo donax feature boundaries was performed on a 24" x 36" CalComp Drawing Board II digitizing tablet. The accuracy of registration between each blue-line enlargement and the base map was measured by the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), or an accuracy average of all tested points on a map (in statistical terms) and calculated in map units (meters). The USGS National Map Accuracy Standards constrain the maximum acceptable RMSE according to the intended scale of the output maps. Since the output maps for the project were to be plotted at a minimum scale of 1:6,000 (1"=500'), the tolerance value specified by the National Map Accuracy Standards for maps of this scale was used as a guide during the registration operation. The appropriate RMSE value when registering the blue-line ARM Plan maps to the digital base maps is 3.29180 m (or 0.018 inch in digitizer units). 89% of the individual blue-line sheets for the Arundo coverage were able to meet this standard. 100% of the individual blue-line sheets for the Arundo coverage were able to meet this standard for the output scale 1:12,000 (1"=1000'). Arundo feature boundaries and location were digitized directly onto the USGS DOQQ base maps using ESRI ArcView 3.1 software, for those areas not covered by the ARM Plan aerial photos, (the Mendocino County Reach and Lower Reach in Sonoma County). The data set for these areas is considered to be less accurate. Though the extent of Arundo growth and general locations of feature polygons were the main focus of this mapping project, the determination of stand growth-patterns in relation to surrounding vegetation was considered important due to the implications for eradication efforts and long term monitoring. Arundo stands were classified into the following categories: 1. Overstory: discreet stands of Arundo growing as a mono-culture, visible on both the blue-line enlargements and the low-level oblique photograghs. 2. Overstory/Intermixed: stands of Arundo growing as overstory, but intermixed with other same-sized shrubs and trees. 3. Understory: stands of Arundo growing as the understory layer, with an overstory canopy consisting of larger-sized trees. ArcView 3.1 software was used to convert AutoCAD drawings into a Geographic Information System (GIS) format, allowing data analysis and acreage compilation. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 104 Russian River Team Arundo Project Arundo donax GIS Mapping - file structure and data definitions Arundo donax shape files are found in */gis_projects/Arundo_donax/Amndo/directory. Each directory is comprised of subdirectories arcview (for shape files), cad (original cad files from digitizing process, where available) and calibrat (calibration point coordinate files used in digitizing process, where available) Individual directories, arcview subdirectories and shape files for each reach include: AD Alexander Valley/arcview/Adav0_ply.shp, Adavl_ply.shp, Adav2_ply.shp, Adav3_ply.shp Each of these files cover a different portion of the Alexander Valley and are made up of layers (see method section for more detail): AD: Overstory - discreet stands of Arundo growing as a mono-culture AD2: Overstory/Intermixed - stands of Ar undo growing as overstory, but intermixed with other same-sized shrubs and trees. AD_under: Understory: stands of Arundo growing as the understory layer, with an overstory canopy consisting of larger-sized trees. AD Fitch Mountain/arcview/fml.shp This file covers the portion of the Fitch Mountain area with SCWA ARM photo coverage (see method section) and are made up of layers: AD: Overstory - discreet stands of Arundo growing as a mono-culture AD2: Overstory/Intermixed - stands of Arundo growing as overstory, but intermixed with other same-sized shrubs and trees. AD_under: Understory: stands of Arundo growing as the understory layer, with an overstory canopy consisting of larger-sized trees. AD Fitch Mountain/arcview/fm_over.shp (corresponds with Overstory definition listed above), fm_shrub.shp (corresponds with Overstory/Intermixed definition) and fm_under.shp (corresponds with Understory defininition) AD lower reach/arcview/lr_over.shp (corresponds with Overstory definition listed above), ir_shrub.shp (corresponds with Overstory/Intermixed definition) and lr_under.shp (corresponds with Understory defininition) AD Mendocino/arcview/adxloc.shp, ad00.shp, ad.shp (note: these names should be changed or shape files aggregated) Each of these files cover a different portion of the Mendocino reach with no stand type differentiation. AD middle reach/arcview/admr_ply.shp This file covers the entire middle reach area and is made up of layers: AD: Overstory - discreet stands of Arundo growing as a mono-culture AD2: Overstory/Intermixed - stands of Arundo growing as overstory, but intermixed with other same-sized shrubs and trees. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 Russian River Team Arundo Project AD_under: Understory: stands of Arundo growing as the understory layer, with an overstory canopy consisting of larger-sized trees. As well as some miscellaneous directories: · Area Masks (area shape files) · Base (Excel and database files for acreage analysis, .tif files to be used as location maps or general base maps, and various shape files [rr_ws.shp - Russian River watershed boundary][russianr, shp - Russian River][so_me.shp - Sonoma and Mendocino county boundaries] In March of 2001, the .shp files for Arundo extent in Mendocino County were appended into one .shp file. Using the Map Join functionality within The Engine extension (Geokinetic Systems Inc.), the ad00.shp file was appended to adxloc.shp. The resulting file from this join was appended to ad.shp. The resulting .shp file illustrates the extent ofArundo Donax infestations along the Russian River in Mendocino County, CA. Tributary Mapping The procedures listed below describe methods used to survey and map the extent ofArundo donax invasion occurring within the alluvial zone along significant tributaries of the Russian River. As part of this project Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. (CRP) mapped the extent of the giant reed invasion using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software ArcView GIS version 3.1, donated by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), Environmental Conservation Program. CRP has surveyed the majority of the salmonid-bearing streams in the watershed (Table 2) to document the level of Arundo invasion. Because Arundo tends to be found predominantly in alluvial areas, CRP has focused the aerial reconnaissance and mapping program on the alluvial sections of the tributary streams. Two sets of imagery data were used as base maps for the project due to differences in available digital aerial photography data for Sonoma and Mendocino counties. For Mendocino county, USGS Digital Orthogonal Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQ) were used for the raster-format underlay for display of the final mapped stands ofArundo.. Mendocino County USGS DOQQ were developed from 1993 National Aerial Photography Program imagery (1:40,000 photo scale). The prOject 3.75-minute DOQQ are in the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system on the North American Datum of 1983 and have a ground pixel distance of 1 meter. For infestations mapped in Sonoma county, newly released orthophotography was used as the base imagery. The county orthophotogrpahy utilized in this project was a "Beta Version" of the orthophotography in Mr. SID-Compressed format. The data are stored in California Stateplane Zone II, NAD 83 (survey feet) II coordinates, and have been corrected to the ground using aerial and ground- based global positioning system (GPS) survey coordinates. At the time of use, the image data was being quality checked by County staff and may have contained irregularities. Available photo resolution varies within the orthophoto coverage with one-foot resolution or better in urban or incorporated areas and two-foot resolution in forested, mountainous, or other unincorporated areas of the County. In both October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 106 Russian River Team Arundo Project counties, Arundo stands were interpreted from photographs taken during a series of low-level fixed wing aircraft flights. In the fall/winter months of 1998, low-level fixed wing aircraft test flights were conducted to determine the best film type, weather conditions, season, photo angle, and plane flight altitude for photographing Arundo in a riparian setting. The significant tributaries were photographed during several low level flights conducted during the winter months (Jan./Feb. 2001), when riparian plant species were dormant, providing the clearest view of Arundo stands. A series of sequential, overlapping photographs was taken for both banks, at an approximate altitude of 500 feet, at a 45 degree angle, using Kodak Gold color film. Arundo polygons not clearly seen in the photographs were identified in the GIS database as being sites that require further surveying or base imagery with improved resolution. Subsequent to the development of the hand held camera photographs, the photos were cataloged in a Microsoft Excel datasheet, indicating the roll number, photo number a general locational descriptor and the name of the tributary that the photograph captures. The features determined to be Arundo infestations were then digitized directly onto the USGS DOQQ base maps using ESRI ArcView 3.1 and ArcView 3.2 software. When possible, the area boundary of the infestation was digitized, producing a polygon feature to describe the infestation. However, in many cases the resolution of the base imagery was inadequate for mapping the infestations as polygonal data features. Consequentially, a majority of the tributary infestations were mapped as points, representing approximate locations of the centers of infestation stands. The differences in polygonal and point data have been accounted for by creating centroids of the digitized polygons. The resulting points were merged together into one GIS format file (ESRI .shp file) that illustrates and describes the extent of Arundo infestations along significant tributaries to the Russian River. Additionally, a GIS format (ESRI .shp file) has been created that describes the Russian River tributaries that have Arundo donax infestations along them. Results Mapping Maps generated from the CRP project are included as Figures 2-18, and depict only selected representative locations of Arundo invasion for the main stem and the tributaries. The entire data set has been provided via CD to the Sonoma County Water Agency. Seven hundred and sixty four points were identified as approximate locations (point data) of Arundo donax infestations within this study. Of these 764, CRP was able to calculate polygonal data for 663. These polygons ranged in size from a minimum of 0.00012 acres to a maximum of 0.95 acres, with the mean acreage being 0.04. Because it was not possible to gather polygonal data on each point due to the inadequacies of the underlying photography, CRP was unable to supply accurate acreage calculations for the tributaries. However, these data can be used to gain a general understanding of the number of acres in tributary watersheds and provide accurate information about the location of tributary infestations. A significant number of tributary infestations are located near the confluence of the tributary and the mainstem. After the mapping was completed, this study required a mechanism for determining which infestations within proximity to the confluence were tributary infestations and which infestations were October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 Russian River Team Arundo Project more closely associated with the mainstem. Using ArcView 3.2, a buffering method was used to facilitate this determination. A buffer of thirty feet was applied to the hydrology of the Russian River: Infestations located within a thirty foot radius of the mainstem and tributary confluence were assigned to the tributary while those that were within proximity to the confluence but did not intersect the thirty foot buffer were attributed as being mainstem infestations. After applying this somewhat arbitrary filter, the data resulted in 227 points being categorized as tributary infestations. Though the extent of Arundo growth and general locations of feature polygons were the main focus of this mapping project, the determination of stand growth-patterns in relation to surrounding vegetation was considered important due to the implications for eradication efforts and long term monitoring. Arundo stands were classified into the following categories: Category 1- Arundo mixed with bareground 2 - Arundo mixed with shrubs and trees 3 - Arundo mixed with bareground and shrubs 4 - Reinterpretation of Arundo locations from previous mapping 5 - Arundo that is identified with confidence 6 - Identified as Arundo, but was not mapped, either due to poor aerial photo quality or inadequate DOQQ resolution 7 - Arundo is tentatively identified, but needs field checking to be confident Category Tributary Mainstem Total Points 1 1 5 6 2 13 37 50 3 2 9 11 4 6 24 30 5 196 412 608 6 6 38 44 7 3 12 15 43 tributaries in the Russian River watershed were identified as having Arundo infestations. Of these tributaries, 15 were unnamed tributaries according to the 1:24,000 hydrographic GIS dataset (hydro_121.shp) produced by CDF FRAP (http://frap.cdf. ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp). 28 Tributaries are named and included in Table 4. Map readers are able to identify these unnamed tributaries using the LLID value which is a unique numeric ID assigned to each hydrographic line feature in the 1:24,000 dataset. Certain tributaries are indicated as having Arundo infestations without corresponding information in the GIS point file indicating the approximate location of the infestation. This is a result of tributaries that have been identified as having Arundo through field surveying however, the point location information was unable to be mapped due to either inadequate base imagery resolution or complications in recording GPS information at the site. The method through which each October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 108 Russian River Team Arundo Project the point data (representing approximate infestation locations) as well as the line data (representing infested tributaries) has been recorded in the "Methods" field of the two GIS databases. The various method values are as follows: AP- information is from an aerial photograph LK- information is from local knowledge, such as someone telling us he/she knows Arundo is present in a general area FC- the Arundo was seen in the field and either was mapped or a GPS reading was taken Discussion Mapping The 1999 baseline mapping of giant reed provides important benchmark data for ongoing monitoring of this highly invasive species. Future map data can be compared to the 1999 baseline to determine rate of expansion, as well as to evaluate the success of control and restoration efforts. Additionally, it may be possible to obtain quantitative historic information about the level of reed invasion from aerial photos, thereby allowing us to develop a chronological understanding of the expansion of this noxious weed in the Russian River system. Using these data, resource management planners are now able to describe the spatial extent ofArundo donax throughout the Russian River watershed. This project has documented the extent of the infestation and confirms that Arundo has infested all reaches and habitat types within the Russian River riparian zone. Riparian habitat in both urban and rural settings have been found to be infested with Arundo as well as in certain cases, upslope areas with little access to waterways. Additionally, Arundo infestations have been located along drainage ditches among agricultural fields as well as being farmed in the Alexander Valley Reach. This project also has significant implications for future Arundo mapping efforts. This project has provided practitioners with substantial experience in mapping Arundo donax infestations along tributaries of the Russian River watershed, whereas previous experiences were focused on the mapping of infestations along the alluvial section of the mainstem of the Russian River. It has been determined that locating tributary infestations from a low-level aircraft is substantially difficult due to relatively small infestation sizes. Small infestations are difficult to locate from the air and are therefore challenging to photograph accurately. The size of the infestation affects the locational accuracy of the mapped information. In order to map small infestations, high resolution base imagery is required, regardless of whether or not one is attempting to map the infestation as an area or as a point that represents a larger area. October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 Russian River Team Arundo Project APPENDIX C Maps October 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration 110 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT ITEM NO. 10.b DATE: June 21,2006 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING AND DELETING CERTAIN SECTIONS FROM DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 1 THE UKIAH CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, PERTAINING TO ZONING SUMMARY: On May 3rd of this year, Planning Department staff recommended the approval of a staff- initiated Ordinance Amendment (OA 06-11) to change regulations governing minor subdivisions of lands with lots having less public street frontage than required under current Ukiah Municipal Code provisions. The intent of the ordinance amendment is to clarify City standards contained within both the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance and to eliminate the redundant, and sometimes, inconsistent regulations that now apply to such land divisions. After reviewing the project and recommendations made by the Planning Commission and City staff, the City Council voted 5-0 to introduce the ordinance. However, prior to its adoption, the City Attorney indicated that this ordinance should be modified to provide more concise descriptions of the actions the ordinance would implement and the conditions under which such subdivision maps could be processed. To accomplish this task, he provided amended text with more clarity and legal definition, omitted several inconsistencies in the types of easements described, and incorporated the ordinance and its exhibits into a single document. Planning staff concurs fully with these changes, noting they will provide a substantially more readable and implementable ordinance without altering the intent or conditions originally introduced with the ordinance. Based on these conclusions, staff is submitting the modified ordinance to the City Council for review. Should the Council accept the changes, this ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at another hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed modifications to the introduced Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not approve the proposed modifications to the introduced Ordinance and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Not applicable Ukiah Planning Department Dave Lohse, Associate Planner Candace Horsley, City Manager, Charley Stump, Planning Director, and David Rapport, City Attorney 1 - Modified Ordinance APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Ma"i~ager ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING AND DELETING CERTAIN SECTIONS FROM DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 1 THE UKIAH CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, PERTAINING TO ZONING The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 1.1 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended by adding the following sections thereto: § 8009: "BUILDING SITE" DEFINED: "Building site" means any area of a lot suitable for constructing a building or buildings. § 8016.5: "MAJOR ACCESS ROADWAY" DEFINED: "Major access roadway" means a right of way, easement, or other privately owned thoroughfare that affords the primary means of access between a dedicated street and two or more lots with less public street frontage than required in the subdivision ordinance. § 8017.5: "MINOR ACCESS ROADWAY" DEFINED: "Minor access roadway" means a right of way, easement, or other privately owned thoroughfare that affords the primary means of access between a dedicated street and a single lot with less public street frontage than required in the subdivision ordinance. SECTION TWO Section 8305 in Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 18 is hereby amended to read as follows. §8305: REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS WITH PROPERTY NOT ABUTTING A DEDICATED CITY STREET: When a minor subdivision does not satisfy the requirement in Section 8300.B.4, because one or more lots proposed to be subdivided do not abut a dedicated street, the subdivision may still be approvable as a minor subdivision, if the lots created by the subdivision satisfy the following requirements. A. Such lots shall have a minimum net area of five thousand (5,000) square feet in each building site, excluding any portion of such site with a sul~standard lot width that is extended to a dedicated street for purposes of access or other purposes ("flag lot") or is burdened by an easement to another parcel for access or other purposes. B. Easements in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer shall benefit each lot in the proposed subdivision that requires private access to a dedicated street, the purposes of which shall include public utilities, drainage facilities, and the development of an access roadway between the dedicated street and the lots requiring access thereto ("the access easement"). The minimum width of the access easement shall be twenty feet (20'). C. The owner of the property proposed to be subdivided ("the property owner") shall at his/her own expense, install within the access easement all utilities, drainage facilities, and access roadways required to serve the properties created by the subdivision. a. Facilities for the drainage of surface water shall be provided for the lots created by the subdivision. All such facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City design standards or other design methods approved by the City Engineer. E. Within and throughout the length of the access easement, the property owner shall construct an access roadway in accordance with the following requirements: la. A major access roadway shall be constructed to provide ingress and egress between the dedicated street and two or more lots with less public street frontage than required in the subdivision ordinance. This roadway shall have a minimum paved surface width of twenty feet (20'). lb. A minor access roadway shall be constructed to provide ingress and egress between the dedicated street and a single lot with less public street frontage than required in the subdivision ordinance. This roadway shall have a minimum paved surface width of twelve feet (12') and may be used for joint access to the property created by the subdivision and an abutting, lot with existing public street frontage if the City Engineer determines that the minor access roadway will provide reasonable and safe access for both lots. 2. The surface for any access roadways between the dedicated street and lots created by the subdivision shall consist of a minimum of two inches (2") of asphaltic concrete over a minimum of six inches (6") of Class II aggregate base material or other all-weather surfacing materials which the City Engineer determines will provide equivalent standards of accessibility and durability. 3. The area used for any access roadway between the dedicated street and lots created by the subdivision shall not be considered as part of any building site or be used as any required yard area for the purpose of determining the net area for any of the lots. 4. A building setback with a minimum width of five feet (5') shall be maintained from the edge of pavement for any access roadway. 5. The property owner shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, and damages arising from the use of said access easement by himself or any other parties. 6. The property owner shall execute agreements and other documents as are determined by the City to be necessary to impose an obligation on the owner of each lot benefited by the access easement to maintain facilities constructed within the easement in a condition satisfactory to the City Engineer at the cost of lot owners based on the square footage of each lot divided by the total square footage of all the lots served by the access easement and said facilities. The documents also shall give the City authority to perform any maintenance work on the private roadway and such drainage structures located therein, if the owners of said lots, or their successors or assigns, fail to maintain the private roadway or drainage structures to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, the costs thereof to constitute liens on said lots. F. A scale map shall be submitted with any application for a building permit and shall set forth the following: 1. The location and area of the access easements. 2. The location of the access roadway within the access easement, stating the grade of the access roadway to be installed, the location of any utilities and drainage facilities, and any other information the City Engineer deems pertinent to the proposed development of properties created by the subdivision. G. The city council, upon the recommendation of the planning commission, may approve exceptions to the required width of easements, as specified above, if the development of a narrower easement is consistent with the findings for exceptions as set forth in Division 9, Chapter 1, Article 19, commencing with Section 8320. SECTION THREE Sections 9251 and 9252 in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 and the definition of "Street Private" in Section 9278 in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 21 are hereby deleted. SECTION FOUR These amendments are necessary to establish more concise and efficient regulations for the division of lands involving lots with limited public street frontage and to provide more flexible access standards that will allow lot development that is consistent with City infill policies. SECTION FIVE The City Council has determined that the proposed amendments will not cause adverse environmental effects and are, in fact, exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION SlX This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION SEVEN This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on May 3, 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Ashiku NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Amended on June 21, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Adopted on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ,2006, by the following vote: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ITEM NO: 10c DATE: June 21, 2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: RECETVE STATUS REPORT CONCERNI'NG DOWNTOWN AND PERKTNS STREET CORRI'DOR COMMUNTTY VTSI'ONTNG AND FORM BASED CODE PRO.1ECT SUMMARY: The purpose of this Agenda item is to provide the City Council with a status report of the Downtown/Perkins Street Corridor Community Visioning and Form Based Code project. At the recent direction of the Council, Staff formed an interview panel to interview the three consulting firms who submitted proposals for the project. The panel is comprised of Staff, Planning Commissioner/Main Street Design Committee member Judy Pruden, Downtown Design Review Board member Estok Menton, Ukiah Chamber of Commerce member/Planning Commissioner Jim Mulheren, and Smart Growth Coalition member Mary Anne Landis. The panel has met and discussed the interview process, questions for the consultants, timing, and logistics. The interviews will be conducted on June 19th at the Conference Center. Staff will provide Council with a verbal report about the interviews at its June 21, 2006 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City Manage~ AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO: DATE: June 21, 2006 REPORT SUB3ECT: RECETVE STATUS REPORT CONCERNTNG SI'GN ORDTNANCE ENFORCEMENT ACTTVTTI'ES SUMMARY: At its May 17, 2006 meeting, the City Council received a third sign violation enforcement report from Staff. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council suggested that in addition to focusing on unauthorized banner signs, Staff should work on non-complying A-frame signs, abandoned signs, and other sign violations. A-frame Signs: Staff is inventorying A-frame signs that may violate the sign ordinance. To date, 2! such signs have been identified. The Code Compliance Coordinator is working closely with the Economic Development Coordinator to distribute A-frame sign regulations to these and other business owners in an effort to educate them about the A-frame sign regulations. Abandoned Signs: Staff also began an inventory of abandoned signs and found eight signs that appeared to be abandoned. Staff has initiated contact with property owners to discuss the abandoned sign regulations and seek voluntarily compliance. Other Siqn Violations: Staff also identified a number of other sign violations. These included inflatable advertising devices, moving signs, an unauthorized "coming soon" sign, and signs violating the maximum square footage regulation. The property owners have been contacted and informed of the violations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNAI'ZVE COUNCZL POL]:CY OPT]:ON: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: City Council Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and Chris White, Code Compliance Coordinator Attachments: None APPROVED: Horsley, City Current Sian Violation Cases The Code Compliance Coordinator continues to monitor the unauthorized banner sign cases identified last April. Some businesses have applied for and received approval for a temporary special event or grand opening banner sign, while others have simply removed their banners. The number of requests for temporary banner signs have increased significantly, which illustrates the effectiveness of the education approach the Code Compliance Coordinator has taken. On-going monitoring will ensure that temporary banner signs are removed within the timeframe proposed by the property owners and approved by Staff. Other Code Compliance Cases For the Council's information, the Code Compliance Coordinator is working on 26 additional code violation cases involving marijuana cultivation, junk and debris, noise, people living in motor homes and storage sheds, garbage accumulation, basketball hoops in the public right-of-way, etc. He is working closely with the Police Department, Planning Staff, Building ]:nspector, Fire IVlarshal, and County Environmental Health Department to resolve these cases. Listinq of Cases Staff has been advised by the City Attorney that it is not legally appropriate to include a list of the violation cases that includes the names of property owners and addresses of the violations in the public record. This is why such a list is no longer attached to the Agenda Summary Report. ITEM NO. Z0e DATE: 6/21/06 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DI'SCUSSI'ON AND POSSI'BLE I'NTRODUCTZON OF REVZSED ORDI'NANCE CONCERNI'NG THE APPOTNTMENT OF PLANNI'NG COMMI'SSI'ONERS~ASHI'KU Since .luly 2004, each individual member of the City Council appoints one Planning Commissioner. The Commissioner's term of office coincides with the term of the City Councilmember who appointed that Commissioner. At the February 15, 2006 meeting, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft Ordinance amending the current system for appointing Planning Commissioners. The revised ordinance would allow for each Councilmember to nominate a Commissioner of their choice but would also require final ratification by a vote of the full Council. The Council asked that the revised ordinance come back to the Council at a later time for consideration. Mayor Ashiku has asked that this item be agendized for discussion at this meeting. Attached for Council's review are the minutes of the February 15, 2006 Council meeting, the proposed revised ordinance based on the Council's direction, the current and past ordinances for the appointment of Planning Commissioners and a list of current Planning Commissioners. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and possibly introduce amended ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Direct staff to revise the ordinance further. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Mayor Ashiku Candace Horsley, City Manager Dave Rapport, City Attorney 1. Amended draft Ordinance 2. Minutes of the February 15, 2006 Council meeting 3. Past Ordinances 4. List of Planning Commissioners APPROVED: ~~'~-~. -~_j~-"~~,..~ Candace Horsley, Cit~Manager Attachment # ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTION 1151 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows. FINDINGS: 1. The City Council finds that a diversity of views should be represented on the City's Planning Commission. 2. This diversity of views is best achieved, if each City Council member has the opportunity to select a planning commissioner. 3. It is the intent of the City Council that each City Council member should have the opportunity to select a planning commissioner, subject to ratification by a majority vote of the City Council. 4. It is the expectation of the City Council that the commissioner nominated by a City Council member will be approved by a majority vote of the City Council, except in unusual circumstance, where a majority of the City Council does not believe that the candidate is suited to perform the functions of a planning commissioner, which include an ability to understand and apply the laws and standards that apply to commission decisions, listen carefully to evidence and argument presented during commission meetings, make reasoned decisions and clearly articulate positions. SECTION ONE. Section 1151 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: §1151: MEMBERS; APPOINTMENT: Said commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be registered voters of the city. Each member of the city council, including each newly elected or appointed city council member, may nominate one commissioner who shall be appointed to the commission, if approved by a majority vote of the city council. Each commissioner's term of office shall coincide with the term of office of the city council member who nominated him or her. A new city council member selected to fill a vacancy on the council and serve out an unexpired term of office may nominate a replacement of the commissioner nominated by ORDINANCE NO. 1 that council member's predecessor in office, who shall be appointed for the remainder of that council_member's term of office, if approved by a majority vote of the city council. If a commissioner vacates his or her office before the expiration of his or her term of office, the city council member who nominated that commissioner may nominate a replacement to serve the remainder of that commissioner's term of office, who shall be appointed, if the nomination is approved by a majority vote of the city council. If a city council member's nomination receives less than a majority vote, he or she may nominate additional candidates, one at a time, until one of them is appointed by a majority vote of the city council. Commissioners shall be nominated and voted upon at a single city council meeting, unless a different procedure is approved by a majority vote of the city council. If a city council member fails to nominate a commissioner within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs, a majority of the city council shall fill the vacancy following the procedure used to appoint members to other city commissions and boards. SECTION TWO 1. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. It shall apply to injuries or damage occurring after it becomes effective. Introduced by title only on 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Adopted on ,2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 2 CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting Attachment CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 February 15~ 2006 1. ROLL CALL 6:08:29 PM Councilmembers Present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff Present: Risk Manager/Budget Officer Goodrick, City Manager Horsley, Finance Director McCann, City Attorney Rapport, Community/General Services Director Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor Simerson, Planning Director Stump, Police Chief Williams, and City Clerk Ulvila. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE6:08:49 PM Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance. URGENCY ITEM: 6:09:17 PM Mayor Ashiku announced that there is a need to take immediate action and the need for action came to the attention of the City Attorney subsequent to the agenda being posted. The Urgency Item concerns: "Approval of joint defense and confidentiality agreement, authorizing the City Attorney to sign the agreement on behalf of the City." M/S Rodin/McCowen to included Urgency Item under New Business, item "10f" on the agenda, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 3. PRESENTATION//INTRODUCTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS 3a. Introduction of New Police Department Employees- Police Officers Josh Cabral, Andy Porter~ and Chris Lone 6:10:28 PM Police Chief Williams introduced new Police Officers Josh Cabral, Andy Porter, and Chris Long to the City Council. 3b. Introduction of New Finance Department Employees- Jeff Kin.q~ Information Techn01o¢w Specialist and Steve Butler,. Information Technology Supervisor 6:14 PM Finance Director McCann introduced new Finance Department employees Jeff King, Information Technology Specialist, and Steve Butler, Information Technology Supervisor to the Council. 3c. Introduction of New Employee- Chris White~ Code Compliance Coordinator 6:17 PM Planning Director Stump introduced Chris White, the City's new full-time Code Compliance Coordinator. 3d. Proclamation - Recognition of "National Engineers' Week 2006"6: ! 8:44 PM Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamation proclaiming February 19-25, 2006 as "National Engineers' Week" in the City of Ukiah, and called upon all citizens and civic organizations to recognize the contributions made by this special group of people. Rick Seanor, president of the Lake and Mendocino Counties Engineers Association, accepted the Proclamation and noted that the focus of this organization is to raise money throughout the year to fund a scholarship program for students interested in the engineering field. City Manager Horsley responded by stating that staff will provide Council with an update. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10c. Receipt of Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2004-200511:06:57 PM M/S McCowen/Baldwin accepting and filing the audited financial statements for Fiscal Year 2004- 2005, and carried by a unanimous consensus of the Council. 10. NEW BUSINESS 1Od. Selection of Disaster Planning Sub-Committee AshikU 11:08:11 PM Mayor Ashiku stated that he would like to form a subcommittee to review the City's Disaster Planning process. He noted that since the floods of December 2005, he has expressed an interest in making sure the citizens are prepared for possible future disasters and the City is prepared to respond. He inquired if Councilmember Crane would be willing to serve on the subcommittee with him. Councilmember Crane agreed. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of Council to have Mayor Ashiku and Councilmember Crane serve on the Disaster Planning Sub-Committee. 10ep..~ 'Discussion and Po ,s, $ib!.e Action Regarding Procedures for the Appointment of Planning '~--'-~ Commissioners---Ashiku] ]:09:]4 PM Mayor Ashiku advised that he asked to agendize a discussion and possible action regarding the procedures for appointment of Planning Commissioners to the City Planning Commission, upon a suggestion by 'Councilmember McCowen. As of May 2004, the Planning Commissioner terms coincide with the terms of office of the Councilmember who nominated that Commissioner. Councilmember McCowen explained that at the time the City Council adopted the new procedure, which he considered an improvement over the way the previous appointments were handled, he thought it would be advisable to grant each Councilmember the privilege to nominate their Planning with the understanding that, in the vast majority of cases, that person would be ratified by the Council, but still provide for final ratification by the vote of the full City Council. He noted that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has adhered to this procedure for the past 30 years and he felt that it is a process that has worked well for them. He proposed that Council adopt the same method and it would be understood that each sitting Councilmember has the right to nominate their choice for Planning Commissioner. Councilmember Baldwin disagreed with the suggestion and pursued discussion with Councilmember McCowen concerning the matter. Judy Pruden, current City Planning Commissioner, was of the opinion that the current system works well, and noted the difference between the City Council and the Board of Supervisors with regard to jurisdiction and districts. It was noted by Mayor Ashiku that the suggestion proposed by Councilmember McCowen allows Councilmembers an opportunity to ask questions of the applicant so they can make a determination. Councilmember Rodin noted that the system could become a political appointment and how a 7 majority of council could vote down an appointment. Councilmember Baldwin recommended that a member of the Airport Commission not be a pilot. City Attorney Rapport was directed by a consensus of the City Council to provide a draft Ordinance amending the current system for appointing Planning Commissioners, based on current discussion of the matter at this meeting. Councilmember Baldwin cast a "no" vote. 10f. Approval of Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement and Authorization to City Attorney to Si.qn Agreement on behalf of the City! ! :46:02 PM M/S Crane/McCowen approving Joint Defense and Confidentiality Agreement regarding City of Roseville withdrawal from Pooling Agreement and authorize City Attorney to sign agreement on behalf of the City; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10g.(6h) Adopted Resolution Revising Fees for Copy Costs!!:46:40 PM An analysis of the costs of copies was made and a resolution reducing the fee from 20 cents to 10 cents per copy was presented for adoption. M/S McCowen/Crane adopting Resolution 2006-40 revising fees for copy costs; carried by unanimous voice vote of the City Council. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Crane provided a report of a Skate Park Committee meeting he attended. The Committee is currently involved in strategies for fund raising and timelines for developing Requests for Design, utilizing the private funds that have been raised by the Committee. Councilmember Baldwin reported on an Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) meeting in which other agencies were involved. The City will need to fund $30,000 immediately to assist with payment for the first stage for the feasibility study. He recommended this matter be placed on Council's next agenda for discussion of the feasibility study. 12. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS City Manager Horsley reported that several workshops are being scheduled for the City Council and inquired as to what time Council preferred the meetings to begin. Council agreed that the workshops could be held just prior to the regular Council meeting commencing. Adjourned to Closed Session: ! 2: ! ~;:08 AM 13. CLOSED SESSION Employee Negotiations: Fire Unit Negotiator: Candace Horsley Reconvened: 1:10 AM No action taken on Closed Session item. 14. ADJOURNMENT Th~r_e~ being no further b. usiness, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 AM. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 8 Attachment #_ _~ ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cl'rY OF UKIAH AMENDING SECTIONS 1151 and 1152 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEIR TERMS OF OFFICE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Sections 1151 and 1152 in Article 4, Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Ukiah City Code are amended to read as follows: § 1151: MEMBERS; APPOINTMENT: Said Commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be residents of the City. Each member of the City Council, including each newly elected or appointed City Council member, shall appoint one Commissioner. A new City Council member selected to fill a vacancy on the Council and serve out an unexpired term of office may replace the Commissioner appointed by that Council member's predecessor in office. If a Commissioner vacates his or her office before the expiration of his or her term of office, the appointing City Council member of that Commissioner shall appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of that Commissioner's term of office. If a City Council member fails to appoint a Commissioner within sixty (60) days after the vacancy occurs, a majority of the City Council shall fill the vacancy following the procedure used to appoint members to other City commissions and boards. § 1152: TERMS OF MEMBERS: A Commissioner's term of office shall coincide with the term of the City Council member, including the Mayor, who appointed that Commissioner. SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Planning ORDINANCE NO. 1055 1 of 2 Commissioners who are in office, when this Ordinance becomes effective, shall remain in office until January 1,2005, even if, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, their term would have expired on or would have extended beyond that date. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission prior to January 1, 2005, it shall be filled by a member of the City Council, including the Mayor. The member of the City Council with the most seniority on the Council shall appoint a Commissioner to fill the first such vacancy. The next most senior City Council member shall appoint a Commissioner to fill the next such vacancy. Any additional such vacancies shall be filled by individual members of the City Council in order of their seniority on the Council. The terms of any such appointees shall end on January 1,2005. After January 1,2005, a Council member may reappoint to a full term of office a Commissioner he or she appointed prior to January 1,2005. Introduced by title only on May 19, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Rodin, Smith, and Vice Mayor Baldwin. None. Councilmember Andersen and Mayor Larson. None. Adopted on June 2, 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Mayor Larson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Councilmembers Rodin, Andersen, Smith, and Vice Mayor Baldwin Eri~ I.~arson, Mayor Gordon Elton, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1055 2of2 ORDINANCE NO. 958 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF UKIAH AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 1151 and 1152 OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION ONE Ukiah City Code Sections 1151 and 1152 are amended to read as follows: §1151: MEMBERS; APPOINTMENT: Said Commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be the residents of the City and shall be nominated by individual City Council members on a rotational basis pursuant to nomination procedures established by the City Council and appointed by a mojority vote ofthe City Council. §1152: TERMS OF MEMBERS: Of the members first appointed under this ordinance, two (2) shall be appointed for a term of one (1) year, two (2) for the term of three (3) years, and one (1) for the term of (2) years from and after their appointment. The successors shall be appointed for the term of three (3) years. SECTION TWO This ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah. SECTION THREE This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after adoption. INTRODUCED this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Malone ABSTAIN: None 79 Attachment 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. Appointments 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 EIR 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 AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 1 la DATE: June 21,2006 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE; INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, PATHS, OPEN SPACE, AND CREEKS COMMISSION, AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE A News Release was issued on May 9, 2006 soliciting applicants to fill expired terms on the Demolition Permit Review Committee (2), Investment Oversight Committee (1), Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission (3), and the Traffic Engineering Committee (1). As of the June 13, 2006 noon deadline, applications were received from the following individuals: Demolition Permit Review Committee: William D. French, Jr., Lisa Mammina, and Judy Pruden. Investment Oversight Committee: Monte Hill and Todd Schapmire, Jr. Paths, Opens Space and Creeks Commission: Beth Lang and Jimmy Rickel (Mr. Howell Hawkes submitted an application after the deadline) Traffic Engineering Committee: William D. French, Jr. Please note that interviews and appointment to the Airport Commission are scheduled for the July 5, 2006 Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution making appointments to the Demolition Permit Review Committee, Investment Oversight Committee, Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission, and the Traffic Engineering Committee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to re-advertise for the vacancies and/or reschedule appointments accordingly. Citizen Advised: Applicants notified of interview and appointment process Requested by: Ukiah City Council , , ~ Prepared by: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~.,.~Z/Z.~z_~j. ~_z'~-z_.~?,~.; Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution making appointments to the Demolition Permit Review Committee, Investment Oversight Committee, Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission, and the Traffic Engineering Committee 2. News Releases announcing vacancies 3. Terms of City of Ukiah Boards and Commissions 4. Resolution No. 2001-61 - Establishing Procedures for Appointment 5. Listing of Applications Received 6. Applications for appointment- Demolition Permit Review Committee, Investment Oversight Committee, Paths, Open Space, and Creeks . Commission,~q,q,d the Traffic En~]ineering Committee APPROVED: ~---~~,~ '~ Candace Horsley, City Manage)~ ASR: Commission Appointments June 21,2006 ~, Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- :~TTACHUENT / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE PATHS, OPEN SPACE AND CREEKS COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the annual expiration of terms for City Commissions occurred on June 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, the vacancies were duly advertised until the close of applications at noon on June 13, 2006, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2006, the City Council interviewed applicants to the Investment Oversight Committee and the Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission, and are being forwarded for consideration of appointment at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ukiah City Council approved the nominations submitted per procedures outlined in Resolution No. 2001-61, and do hereby appoint the following persons to terms on the following Commissions: DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE to fill a term to June 30, 2008; to fill a term to June 30, 2008; INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTE to fill a term to June 30, 2008; PATHS, OPEN SPACE, AND CREEKS COMMISSION to fill a term to June 30, 2008; to fill a term to June 30, 2008; to fill a term to June 30, 2008; TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE to fill a term to June 30, 2008; PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of June, 2006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Page 1 of 1 ~TTACHMENT ~ NEWS RELEASE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY DATE: FOR RELEASE: SUBJECT: CONTACT: May 9, 2006 Immediately Vacancies on City of Ukiah Commissions Marie Ulvila, City Clerk, 463-6217 UKIAH, CA. - The City of Ukiah announces there will be vacancies occurring on the Airport Commission, Investment Oversight Committee, Paths, Open Space and Creeks Commission, and the Traffic Engineering Committee effective June 30, 2006. Any qualified individual, who would like to make a difference in their community and is interested in serving as a volunteer for the terms as outlined below, may apply for these upcoming vacancies. Current Commissioners may be eligible to reapply. · , . COMMISSION NUMBER LENGTH RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OF OF TERM VACANCIES Airport Commission 1 3 Years *Resident within the Sphere of Influence Demolition Permit Review 2 2 Years 1-Resident within the City Limits of Ukiah, Committee with expertise in architecture, building, or a closely related field 1-Representative of the Mendocino County Historical Society or other group/organization involved with local history, or a local historian Investment Oversight 1 2 Years Resident within the City Limits of Ukiah Committee Paths, Open Space, & 3 3 Years 2- Reside within the City Limits of Ukiah Creeks Commission 1-*Resident within the Sphere of Influence Traffic Engineering 1 N/A Reside within the City Limits of Ukiah Committee *(Sphere of Influence boundaries are ridge top to ridge top, Highway 20 to Burke Hill Road) Applications are located at the reception counter in the administration wing of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, or call 43-6200 or 463-6217 for an application to be mailed, faxed, or emailed to you. The submittal deadline is Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at noon. Interviews for selected commissions will be held and appointments considered at a regular City Council meeting in June 200,_6>, ~ Marie Ulvila, City Clerk If you have any questions regarding the election process, please contact City Clerk Marie Ulvila at 463-6217. KUKI/KIAH KPFM KVVNE KOZT KFWU KZYX KMFB Press Democrat KNTI Ukiah Daily Journal PR: Commission Vacancies June 2006 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707/463-6200 Fax'# 707/463-6204 Web Address: www. cityofukiah.com _~TTACHMENT ~ TERMS OF CITY OF UKIAH BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS As of August 17, 2005 *Next City Councilmember to nominate for appointment to this Commission/Board. Date Present Term Airport Commission - 3 year term ** - (Crane) Appointed Expires EdC crane 2/5/05 6/30/06 **Ken Fowler - Chairman 7/7/04 6/30/07 Dottie Deerwester 7/7/04 6/30/07 Bill Beard 8/3/05 6/30/08 **Benjamin Winter 8/3/05 6/30/08 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence Civil Service Board Albert Beltrami (reappointed by Council 9/6/95) Bob Warner (appointed 2003) Ron Caudillo (appointed 2003) Demolition Permit Review Committee - 2 year term (McCowen) Director of Community Development Director of Public Works/City Engineer Building Official Chair of Design Review Committee Mendocino County Historical Society rep, - Judy Pruden (Chairperson) City of Ukiah Resident- William D. French, Jr. 7/7~04 6/30/06 7/7/04 6~30~06 Design Review Board - (Ukiah Redevelopment Agency - 3-year term - URA Commissioner Baldwin) *Donna Berry 8/17/05 6/30/09 Jody Cole 8/17/05 6/30/09 Tom Liden 8/17/05 6/30/09 Estok Menton 8/17/05 6/30/09 Richard Moser 8/17/05 6/30/09 Five persons with design experience: four shall reside, or own real property or a business within the City of Ukiah City Limits;*one shall represent the community at large with no ownership or residence requirement. Disaster Council - City of Ukiah Councilmember- Mari Rodin City Manager - Candace Horsley Police Captain - Chris Dewey Fire Chief- Kurt Latipow City Attorney - David Rapport (no vote) Federal, State and Local Organizations: American Red Cross California Dept. of Forestry Mendocino Emergency Services Authority Mendocino Transit Authority Pacific Bell Pacific Gas and Electric 12/02/98 Second Vice Chair 2000 11/05/97 Ukiah Chamber of Commerce Ukiah Unified School District Ukiah Valley Medical Center Emergency Services Coordinator Radio Amateur Civic Emergency Services (R.A.C.E.S.) Terms: August 17, 2005 Page 1 of 2 TERMS OF CITY OF UKIAH BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS As of August 17, 2005 Date Appointed Investment Oversight Committee - Public Member 2-year term - (Crane) Mark Ashiku - Mayor Mari Rodin - City Councilmember Candace Horsley - City Manager Mike McCann - Finance Director Allen Carter- City Treasurer, Chair Monte Hill- Public Member 6/30/04 Present Term Expires 6~30/06 Library Advisory Commission - City Representative Councilmember Mari Rodin Parks, Recreation, and Golf Commission - 3-year term** - (McCowen) Chamise Cubbison Robert Beltrami, Interim Chairman Jonah Freedman Don Rones, Sr. -_Men's Golf Club Julie Dunn - Women's Golf Club Michael Kisslinger John Graft 7~7~04 7~7/04 9/1/04 8/17/05 8/17/05 8/17/05 8/17/05 6/30/07 6/30/07 6/30/07 6/30/O7 6/30/08 6/30/08 6/30/08 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence Paths, Open Space, & Creeks Commission (POSCC): (McCowen) Date Appointed Howell Hawkes *Fred Koeppel Dan Holbrook (unexpired term of Bill Randolph) James Connerton *Lindsay Leland 5/21/03 5/21/03 8/6/05 8/3/05 8/3/05 ** Two Commissioners may reside within the Sphere of Influence Term Expires 6/30/06 6/30/06 6/30/06 6/30/08 6/30/08 *Planning Commission-3 year term - (Mayor Ashiku) Mike Whetzel (Ashiku) Ken Anderson (Baldwin) Judy Pruden (Rodin) Kevin Jennings, Vice-Chairman (McCowen) James Mulheren, Chairman (Crane) Date Appointed 1/05/05 1/05/05 1/05/05 1/05/05 1/05/05 Term Expires 11/7/06 (1/07) 11/7/06 (1/07) 11/2008 11/7/06 (1/07) 11/2008 Traffic Engineering Committee - (McCowen) Public Representative - Vacancy *Steve Turner (Public Rep.) *Bruce Richard (MTA Rep.) Risk Manger- Patsy Archibald City Engineer- Diana Steele Deputy Public Works Director- Rick Seanor Police Captain - Dan Walker Associate Planner- Dave Lohse Superintendent of Public Works - Jerry Whitaker A~Dointment 2/4/04 Term Expires Terms: August 17, 2005 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-61 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS. WHEREAS, 1. Ukiah City Code §1151 provides that members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed in accordance with a procedure established by resolution of the City Council; and 2. The City Council adopted a procedure for filling vacancies on the City's boards and commissions, including the Planning Commission; and 3. The City Council has determined that using a uniform procedure will insure fair and consistent treatment of candidates and Councilmembers; 4. The City Council has determined to amend its procedures for appointing commissioners; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amended procedure for filling vacancies on the City's commissions and boards, including the Planning Commission. PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS The City Council shall fill vacancies on City boards and commissions, using the following procedure. 1. Applicant pool. The City Council shall develop an available pool of candidates for a vacancy by advertising the vacancy at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in Ukiah not less than thirty (30) days prior to the council meeting at which the vacancy is to be filled. The advertisement shall specify a deadline for submitting applications. All completed applications received prior to the deadline shall be included in the pool of available applicants, provided the applicant: a. meets the minimum qualifications for the position as established in the applicable Ukiah City Code section or resolution, establishing the commission or board; and bi participates in a personal interview, if the City Council conducts personal interviews for the position. The City Council has determined that interviews will be conducted for applicants of the Planning Commission, the Parks, Recreation and Golf Commission, and the Airport Commission. An application shall be deemed complete when signed by the applicant. Applications included in an available pool may be used as a source of nominations for a period of one (1) year from the application deadline. 2. Exceptions. The following shall be considered for appointment or reappointment to a commission or board without submitting a written application: a. Incumbents seeking reappointment for an additional term; b. Elected officials seeking appointment in their capacity as elected officials; c. City staff seeking appointment in their capacity as City staff; d, All appointees, except public members, on the Investment Oversight Commission, Traffic Engineering Committee, Cultural Arts Advisory Board and the Disaster Board; e. City Council members, including the Mayor, appointed in their capacity as City Council members; and f. Appointments to the Civil Service Board. Any such exempt applicants shall be considered for appointment, if they submit a written request for consideration within 10 days of the date the appointment is made. 3. Nominations, Each Councilmember, including the Mayor, shall have the right to nominate a candidate from the available pool of candidates. a. The right to place a name before the City Council ~for consideration shall rotate among the Councilmembers based on seniority with the most senior Councilmember going first. b. The Council shall vote on each nomination as it is made. c. A Councilmember's right to make a nomination shall terminate and the right to nominate candidates shall rotate to the next most senior Councilmember, when a Councilmember's nomination is approved by a majodty vote of the Councilmembers present or the Councilmember agrees to pass the nomination to the next most senior Councilmember, whichever occurs first. d. This process for rotating the right to nominate candidates among Councilmembers to fill vacancies shall be followed for each separate commission or board. 1. The City Clerk shall maintain a record of the last Councilmember to make a nomination for each commission or board. 2. When another vacancy must be filled on that commission or board, the next Councilmember in line to make nominations for that commission or board shall make the first nomination to fill the vacancy. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2001, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku NOES: Councilmember Libby ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None A'I-rEST: Marie UIvila, City Clerk Pfiilip A~hiku, Mayor IJ.l UJ oz U.lUJ ~, ,,o_ ZOu/O~ o ATTACHM : DATE: / :o~ CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEF I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Demolition Permit Review Committee 1. Name 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address 4. Employer 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? Job title Res. Phone 2'0 / ¢'. ¢;'7'4- ?'C-'- Bus. Phone '7~7. years; Mendocino County?.[ Employed since California? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and list any offices held Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Do you live within the Ukiah City Limits? f/L'~,. ~ ~ 8. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Demolition Fefrrfit4;~vJ.e.~ Committee? 9. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? fT*'E"7-- ~ Fy' c..(..~ (./,,,.o~r-,~pcl.~,/' ~ I'~c,~, ~ ~O 10. What is your understanding or experience with the historical preservation of buildings within the City Limits of Ukiah? ~, o / 4- '2 o 2' ~' /¢ c-p~,_ o c.,,v~ 11. What type of design, architecture, building, or other closely related field do you have? 12. vvna[ nas Been your. involvement with the Iocal~istory of the Citv of rJkiah? , - ¢-~.,,,?~ ' 13. rdow oo you Believe your own skills, experience, expertise add perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? ~/, cz.f~) /'/) ~/'y'4--~E. ,/- L-4s/--~ 14. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested, and on which you would be willing to serve?.~" Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Tuesday~ 2006. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. Signature //~~--t.._._.~~ ..- Date~/~' ~' City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 Forms: Demolition Permit Review Committee Application 2004 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIE~ ~MMITTEE L[i jun 2oo CI~ OF UKIAH Cl~ CLERK'S DEPARTMENT ! am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Demolition Permit Review Commiffee 1. Name f,-~;, ti\ ~¢h ~]]]), 2. Residence Address '~ ,.~ ~ 3. Business Address Fl.o~e~ 4. Employer ~"(-",~..¢_~"-t-- Res. Phone. Phone Job title Employed since ./¥ (~¢2r-- 5. How long have.you resided in Ukiah? '~-~?) years; Mendocino County?'7--(~ California?.'-~ I 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with and list any offices held. Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Do you live within the Ukiah City Limits? 8. Why are you applying to serve on the City of 'Ukiah's Demolition Permit Review Committee? 9. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? 10. What is your understanding or experience with the historical preservation of buildings within the City Limits of Ukiah? 11. 12. 13. What type of design, architecture, building, or other closely related field do you have? What has been your involvement with the local history of the.City of Ukiah? How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? 14. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested, and on which you would be willing to serve? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Tuesda¥~ June 13~ 2006. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. Signature Date City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Forms: Demolition Permit Review Committee Application 2004 Phone' 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 Front TIT Dez OP June5,2006 To Re City Council, City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Demolition Permit Review Committee Honorable members of the City Cotmcil, Today I am applying for reappointment to the Demolition Permit Review Committee. Please find the answers to questions #7 through #14 below. 7) I have lived within the City limits for the past 5 years. I have spent 28 years living in the Ukiah Valley, and all of my life living in California. $) I have greatly enjoyed working on the Committee over the Past few years. I have learned a lot about our history and have been able to encourage the City to look into- preserving more of our rural and agricultural structures. 9) The Demolition Permit Review Committee reviews applications for the demolition of structures that are over 50 years old. The Committee develops findings regarding the historical and architectural importance of said structures and then makes a recommendation to the City of Ukiah regarding the demolition permit. 10) I have always been interested in the architectural heritage of Ukiah. I have encouraged the preservation of our historical structures, the reconstruction of structures we have lost, and the restoration of our Downtown. I have passed on to property owners historic photos of there properties, to encourage them to develop restoration plans. I served on the Design Review Board for a number of years and resigned when I found that the majority of the committee was not interested in preserving historic architectural. elements of the buildings that were up for funding. I have also been a strong advocate for the preservation of important structures and signs that are newer than 50 years of age. I would like to see the City develop a preservation ordinance that allows for the preservation of the handful of important structures and signs that have been built within the past 50 years. 756 J'ouUlT Oail. It;reel; - I'~arlsnTer~ V - IJIt.iai~ Cal'd~orr~a gDq82 CT07])q62-q~07 - Preq.cl!jr25~tTot;nTaiLconl.- wuzuJ.~z~oP~.conl. 11) Where I do not have a background in architecture or design, one of my greatest skills is photograph identification utilizing architectural elements. I also have strong research skills. I volunteered in the photo department of the Marin History Museum when I lived in San Rafael in the late 1990s. 12) I am the owner and operator of www.bestofukiah, com, a website that focuses on the historic structures of the Ukiah. I have been a local historian for the past 7 years and have utilized what I have learned in the development of my website. My family came to Ukiah in 1968 and my Father was involved in the installation of the first underground agricultural irrigation system in the County. My Mother even spent a season picking grapes before she went to work for the Mendocino County Sheriffs Office, where she worked for 16 years. 13) I have a strong interest in preserving the architectural and historical heritage of Ukiah. I was bom into a poor family and have a strong believe in preserving our rural and agricultural heritage. I have tried to preserve important structures, such as the Green Bean factory on Gobbi and the house that sat on the comer of Clam and Orchard. I pay attention to the restoration movement around the Country and watch home improvement programs on television. This has allowed me to gain an understanding of how structures can be saved and utilized for other purposes, while maintaining their historical and architectural elements. I believe that my economic background sets me apart from other members of the Committee. 14) I am applying for the open position on the Traffic Engineering Committee. Thank you, William D. French, Jr. CITY O F U KIAH APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW COl m applying for.an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Demolition Per I JUl dUN-o 2006 . CITY OF L!.KIP, H CITY, Cl..r-r~!('S Dr-r';.~,RTM~T Residence Address Res. Phone Business Address --~' Bus. Phone -- Employer O'~ L/::: Job title ~~~/~'n ¢ Employed since / How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~O¢~ years; Mendocino C0unty~¢f~ California?.//~ Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated With and list any offices held. ~ase answer the following questions on separat~ sheets of paper and attach. - ) Do you live within the Ukiah City Limits?~¢~ ~ Why are you applying to se~e on the City °f'Ukiah's Demolition Per.mit Review Commi~ee? What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? . What is your understanding or experience with the historical preservation of buildingS within the City Limits of Ukiah? W-hat type of design, architecture, building, or other closely related field do you have? What has been. your involvement with the local history of the City of Ukiah? ~. How do you believe your own skillS, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Demolition Permit Review Committee? ...~wre there any other City of Ukiah Cor~es/commiss~Ons in ~hic~are interested, and on hich you would be willing to serve?(..,~~/~/,¢ ease return this 'application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Tuesday~ June 1 ~06. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. ;t n at u re ~ ~'~-"~¢-~~~-t¢¢-- Date ty of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Phone: 463-6217' Fax: 463-6204 rms: Demolition Permit Review Committee Application 2004 r~ Ms. Judy Pruden Ukiah History Specialist Bldg. Preservation &. Research 304 South Hortense Ukiah, CA 95482 707-462-4945 DATE: 6./2/06 CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE I am applying for an appointment as the Public Member of the Investmer the City of Ukiah. C TY OF L0_y . Co'ifl' it e Tf o r 1. Name___ Monte-. Hill., 2. Residence Address 1308 W. Clay St., fJ'kiah 95482 Res. Phone_ 462-2672 3. Employer A.G. Edwards & Sons Job title Financial - ~ons~]~ant _Employed since ~ ~,. Business Address 302 S. School St., Ukia~ 95482 Bus. Phone_ 462-8585 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 41 years; Mendocino County? 41 California? 64 3. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with or elected or appointed positions you have held: See Attac.__hed Resume 31ease answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. '. Why are you applying to serve the City of Ukiah in this capacity? ~. have seI-~ed in this capacity for 10 years and feel {. What experience do you have that qualifies you to carq/out the duties and responsib~mes as a member of the Investment Oversight Committee? 25 years in the investment business ~ Do you currently conduct any business with the City .as a vendor, supplier, or independent · contractor? No 0 Please be sPecific in describing, your experienCe in the management of a multifaceted investment podfolio. My 25 years of experience has involved .advising investors with a multitude of ,d, iffer.ent investment goals and usin. g a wide .v.ari.e.t of. in estment i st ent 1. How. ex/ensive is your experience relating to mun,c,pal ,~vest,ng¥ Are you ~ ir~a~ w,t~ the State requirements associated with local government investments? .. . . · ' ' ~v munlcipa± experience ~e;w~;e~d~ge~_.o.f__r_e....q~_l.r_e_ments. has come,from my. se...rvice with ~he cfnmllttee and 2. ~ ,uu ~,,y pruv~ous expenence you nave had with municipal government finances. '.A~_¥isJ.ng clients on purchases of municipal secur~~ · 3. W-~'~-t-~;p-es of internal controls would you recommend for t~e C~ty's invest~nent committee? .Periodic (monthly?)_ reviews of the portfolio 4. Why should the City Council appoint you to this position? I have extensive expe_rience With inves'.t~e.nts and kQowledg_e gained from service .on 1;he /hen submitting this-application, p~ease attach a complete resume covering your eoucauon,z'°'c'~ areer, and community experience. Please return this application and attachments to the City lerk by Noon on Tuesday~ June 13, 2006. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. ity of Ukiah, 300 S~~e inary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 ~rms: Investment Oversight Committee Application ;vised: 5/09/06 Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 RESUME MONTE J. HILL NAME: BIRTHDATE: PLACE: Monte J. Hill September 5, 1941 Sebastopol, California EDUCATION: ELEMENTARY: Sebastopol, CA HIGH SCHOOL: Analy High School 1958 COLLEGE: B.S. Pharmacy- University of Pacific, Stockton, CA- 1963 MILITARY: California Army National Guard (Caladng) 1963-1969 State Service Ribbon-2 clusters Honorable Discharge Rank: E-6 (Staff Sergeant) FAMILY: Married 11/14/64 Wife: Kay- Resource Specialist - Yokayo Elementary School- Retired 2002 Children: Kristine: BA Business-Marketing Sacramento State University-1988 Craig: BA Industrial Technology- Polymer Science Chico State University - 1990 CHURCH: St. Mary's of the Angels Lector, Finance Committee, Physical Plant Study Committee, Parish Council, Building Committee, Knights of Columbus, St. Mary's School Board of Education - 1973-1975. CAREER: 1965-1978 1978-1981 1981-1984 1984-2003 2003 -present Managing Partner- Medico Drug Co., Ukiah, CA Winemaker- Parducci Wine Cellars, Ukiah, CA Stockbroker- Paine Webber, Ukiah/Santa Rosa, CA Financial Advisor/Stockbroker- Wachovia Securities, Inc., (formerly First Union Securities, Inc., formerly EVEREN Securities, formerly Kemper Securities, formerly Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards). Financial Advisor/Stockbroker- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. Ukiah, CA PROFESSIONAL: Mendocino County Pharmaceutical Association - Founding Member Redwood Health Foundation - Peer Review Committee 1968-1978 Dale Carnegie Graduate- Speaking and Human Relations RESUME: Monte J. Hill PROFESSIONAL continued: Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards - Century Club 1986-1990 Kemper Financial Services- Executive Council Kemper Securities - Chairman's Circle of Excellence California Community Colleges - Lifetime Limited Service Credential LICENSES: California State Board of Pharmacy, California General Life & Variable Annuity, Securities Exchange Commissions Series 7, Chicago Board of Trade Series 3 SERVICE CLU~B: Ukiah Rotary Club 1966-present President 1986-1987, Paul Harris Fellow, Chairman Polio Drive 1987-1988 COMMUNITY: Heart Fund Drive - Chairman 1966 Junior Achievement- Board of Directors 1967-1969 Downtown Merchants Association- President 1969 CYO - Basketball Coach 1972-1975 Mendocino Community College - Citizen Advisory Committee, Athletics 1975-1976 Campaign to re-elect Don Clausen- County Chairman Mental Health Association - Board of Directors Chamber of Commerce - Board of Directors 1968-1970, 1992-1996, Chairman 4th of July show 1993-1996, Economic Development Committee- Vice Chairman Grace Hudson Museum Endowment Fund- President 1992-present Masonite Corporation - Citizens Advisory Committee 1995-1996 Mendo Lake Credit Union- Board of Directors 1999-present (Currently President) Ukiah Senior Center Endowment Fund- Board of Directors 2006-present Mendocino Wine Alliance-Tasting and Certifying Panel for "Coro Mendocino" Wine Program 2006-present CIVIC SERVICE: County Board of Supervisors: MPIC, Inc. (formerly Private Industry Council)- Chairman Overall Economic Development Committee 1991-2000 Option 9 CERT Project Review Committee 1994-1998 Workforce Investment Act Taskforce 1999 Workforce Investment Board 2000-present Mendocino Council of Governments: Development Corporation Steering Committee 1987-present RESUME: Monte J. Hill CIVIC SERVICE continued: Economic Financing & Development Corporation- Board of' Directors 1995-1996 City of Ukiah: Ukiah Business Development Center - Loan Committee Investment Oversight Committee 1996-present MEMBERSHIPS: American Legion Cal Trout Cannibal Club USA Friends of Wine HOBBIES: Flyfishing, traveling, gardening, woodworking, cooking, wine tasting DATE' CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE JUN. 1 3 2006 ... By:.~.i.' /0 I am applying for an appointment as the Public Member of the Investment Oversight Committee for the City of Ukiah. 1. Name (... /'~[ f'~ F' 2. Residence Address ¢~'~"--('"~/~ff-/~ ~)t- Res. Phone 3. ,mp,o,er 4. Business Address ~ 0 / ,~. ~'¢-~ ~"¢'- Bus. Phone 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? //¢ Employed since years; Mendocino'County? //~ California?..,¢~ 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with or elected or appointed positions you have held: Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. 8. . contractor? Why are y°u aPplying t° serve the City °f Ukiah in this capacity? ~ ~ '~~~2~ What experience do you have that qualifies you to carry out.the duties an~ responsibilities as a m~_m_?eroft,.h,.e,ln, ve~stment~OversightCommi~e.e? ,,~, ~,~ ,/t~~ (~,,~ .C~d~.~ Do you currently conduct any business with [he City as a vendor, supplier, (~r independent~",''' 10. Please be sPecific in describing y. our exper~en.ce ~ the managemen[of a multiface,,ted investment portfolio...~ ' .,~,¢.,. ~ ~ ~ r/~~~~/¢~/~-.~ ~ ~ 1 1. ~ow extensive is' your exlb~/'ience relating to municipal investing. Are you fa. miliar with the State requirements associated, with local aovernment investments? 7'_ ,/=~¢,~., ~ ~c,,~,,,~,,.,. ¢/t~ 12. DesCribe any previous exp"erience you have had with municipal government finances, , . 13. What types of internal controls would you recommend for the City's investment committee? 14. Why should the City Council appoint you to t.l~is position.?. .. When submitting this 'application, please attach a comprete resume Covering your education, career, and community experience. Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. Signatur~ Date ¢//"~//'¢ City of Ukiah, 300 Semi Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 Forms: Investment Oversight Committee Application ' Revised: 5/09/06 ~ Fax £uo~m ' · Todd A. Schapmire, Jr. 601 S. State St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone: 707.570-9855 Fax: 707-462-4394 E-mail: tschapmire~pacific.net Ob|ect~ve To donate my time and knowledge to the community, while gaining experience in the operations of local government. Educatlo____~_~ California State University, Long Beach. Long Beach, Califbmia. Bachelor of Science ia Business Administration, Magna Cum Laude, December 2005 Majors: Accountancy and I4uman Resources GPA- 4.0 (4=A) Honor Societies Phi Kappa Phi National Interdisciplinary, Honor SocieW, CSULB Chapter Beta Gamma Sigma National Business Honor Society, CSUL.B Chapter Work History 2.006- Present, Full Spccmm~ Properties, Inc. Llkiah, CA Realtor~ / Certified Multi-Residential Consultant / Real Estate Investment Planner Duties: To provide clients with an expertise in the current real estate market, real estate contracts, negotiations, marketing, and problem solving. To help clients maximize their return on investment by creating a real estate investment plan based on current and projected market conditions. 2004-2005, ~AX College Park Realty, Long Beach, CA Realtor~ Duties: To provide clients with an expertise in the current real estate market, real estate contracts, negotiations, marketing, and problem solving. 2002-2004, Canteen Vending Service, Ukiah, CA Sales Representative, Technology Advisor (Summers Only) Duties: To increase the company's customer base in the service areas of vending and office coffee. To assist with the implementation of handheld computers into everyday operations. 2000, Ukiah Daily Journal, Ukiah, CA Freelance Writer (Summer') Duties: To write news stories about events around I~iah. References Del Wall, Vice-President RE/MAX College Park Realty, 562-435-7554 Tom Larson, President Full Spectrum Properties, Inc. 707-462-1600 ' CITY OF UKIAH ~ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTM~I~t~ PATHS, OPEN SPACE, AND CREEKS i am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Paths, Op~~a~B~~¢om ~ission 1. Name '~~ 2. Residence Address Res. Phone 3. Business Address 4. Employer ~6/'~' 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? 6. Bus. Phone Job title Employed since years; Mendocino County? ~.-'~) California? Please list cpmmuni.ty groups or organizatipDs you are affiliated with. Indicate office held? Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 10. In your opinion, what type of programs or development should the City encourage? 11. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? i 2. Do you have any known projects or conflict of interest related to this Commission? 13. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Tuesda¥~ June 13~ 2006. Thank you for your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. Signature ~-~") A~ Date City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Forms: Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission Application Phone: 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 · CITY OF UKIAH ' APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMEI~'~)I_LE ~ L~/~ ~,/~ ~ ~ I am applying for an poi ent to the City of Ukiah's Paths, Op ssion 1. Name ~ '/~-,¢.,~~ 2. Residenc~dress .~ ¢'~¢/~'7/ ~, ,,¢"7-'/~rT'~ Res. Phone ~ ~- ~'¢*~ 3. Business Address (4' J,('l~ ~ Bus. Phone --- 4. Employer ~F/~ ~ ,5'~-/~l,4¢/¢~ Job title /~I~E¢~,,~ Employed since I¢?¢' 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~ years; Mendocino County? ~ California? 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held? Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 'To 8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission? 10. In your opinion, what type of programs or development should the City encourage? 11. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? i 2. Do you have any known projects or contlict of interest related to this Commission? 13. Are there any other City of URiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested and on which you would be willing to serve? Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon on Tuesday~ June 13~ 2006. Thank you f~ your interest in serving the City of Ukiah. City of Ukiah, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Phone' 463-6217 Fax: 463-6204 Forms: Paths, Open Space, and Creeks Commission Application JIMMY RICKEL. 6, o ~ Page 1 of 2 JIMMY RICKEL LOCAL BOY LOOKING AFTER YOUR ISSUES BORN JULY 19,1946 IN TUCSON, ARIZONA. MOVED TO UKIAH CALIFORNIA IN 1952. ATTENDED LOCAL SCHOOLS MI LITARY SERVICE: AUGUST 1963 TO SEPTEMBER 1967 US ARMY 82ND AIRBORNE OUT OF FORT BRAGG, NC. OVERSEAS DUTY CLOSED OUT IN GERMANY. EDUCATION: AA SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE AA MENDOCINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE HUMAN SERVICES CERTIFICATE MCC BACHELOR OF ARTS SONOMA STATE COLLEGE EMPLOYMENT: NEW CAREERS IN MENTAL HEALTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE OUTREACH COUNSELOR DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES CONSULTANT ACCESS TELEVISION PRODUCER POLITICAL OFFICE HELD: UKIAH VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS PAST PRESIDENTS: MENDOCINO COUNTY VETERANS COMMANDAR AMERICAN LEGION POST 76 WOMENS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION REDWOOD EMPIRE LIONS CLUB (23 YEARS) HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN LOCAL POLITICS SINCE 1971. I BELIEVE IN THE NEED TO WATCH OUR GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SHA~£ WITH THE PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTION WITH STRAIGHT TALK. YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER LOCAL POLITICS. VOTE ABSENT VOTER'S BALLOT 2006 Contact Information Email · Phone · & ,,,4 J jimmyrickel@yahoo.com 707-485-7915 *"~_ _~. ,~.z~.__ ~'-~__. ~'~,~ JIMMY RICKEL Page 2 of 2 ~aaress · I-'OS[ ~J~lce uox z4 3900 # 71 North State Street Ukiah California 95482 United States of America Powered by Yahoo! Web Hosting. Copyright ©2005 Yahoo, Inc. CITY OF UKIAH APPLICATION FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMI'I'~;~ Date ',.~'c,.~.~j~' t ~.(D:D~? ~"!: I am applying for an appointment to the Oity of Ukiah's Traffic 'n - .... 1.Name ~tt~t¢ O, ~t~~, ~. 2. Residence Address 3. Business Address 4. Employer Job title Res. Phone ~ ~-. -~[ ~m-~Phone c.( t~ ~" 9 '~ c~ I Employed since 5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? .~-~ years; Mendocino County? ~ ~;~ California? "~ ~ ~,'~ 6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with. Indicate office held. · Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and attach. 7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Traffic Engineering Committee? 8. fWhat is your understanding of the purpose role and responsibility of the Traffic Engineering ~ Committee? ' , 10. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise and perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Traffic Engineering Committee? What do you believe is the single most important traffic related issue facing our community'~ and why? . 11. In your opinion, what pther transportation issues/problems should the City expend its limited resources to resolve? 12. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah? 13. Are there any other City of Ukiah Committees/Commissions in which you are interested, and on which you would be willing to serve? 14. D© you have any known projects or conflict of interest related to this Committee? SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO' City of Ukiah, Attn: City Clerk, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Forms:Traffic Engineering Committee Application Revised: 8/20/99 Fro Ttt_e De h OP ... June5,2006 To Re City Council, City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Traffic Engineering Committee Opening Honorable members of the City Council, Today I am applying for the open position on the Traffic Engineering Committee. Please find the answers to questions #7 through #14 below. 7) The future of Ukiah is very important to me. I was born and raised here and I have seen what bad planning has done to increase traffic congestion. I believe there are practical steps that we can start to take to help ease congestion and improve our roadways. I strongly believe in developing a detailed plan for improving our roads so that when funding is available, projects can get started immediately. I also believe that by working with public transit agencies and the school district we can lighten congestion. 8) By my understanding, the Traffic Engineering Committee develops proposals for improving traffic conditions and then submits them to the City Council for review and approval. 9) I have been involved with local government since 1996, and have developed strong working relationships with the City of Ukiah. I was a member of the Mendocino County Mental Health Board and have developed strong relationships with members of the Board of Supervisors. While on the Mental Health Board, I was known for my ability to learn quickly, and come up with compromises that both sides of issues could accept. I am very observant and have the ability to understand complicated issues. Seeing that I am a student, I do not work from 9am to 5pm. I have been able to be on our roads at different times during the day. This has given me a great understanding of how different traffic problems are at varying times each day. It has also allowed me to focus on what is not currently working and find ways to improve current conditions. I spent part of my late teens and early 20s living in the Bay Area. Because of this I have seen how a well run transit agency can improve traffic congestion. I have also seen how 7515 J'oulslt Oah. II;reel; - I~art;ntertl; V - Ul~.ic~ (aliPorr~a g'sq82 C707])qt52-q~o7 - Prertd!jr25~ol;ntail. cont- www.be;t;oPul~ialT, conT stop lights, cross walks, and traffic calming conditions can make cities better places to live for all citizens. 10) This is not an easy question. To me the biggest problem currently effecting traffic is the number of parents dropping off and picking up their children from school. Because of these drop offs and pickups, traffic on Low Gap, Gobbi, and Perkins back up and cause massive congestion. I have been a strong advocate for working with the Ukiah Unified School District to first understand why students are not utilizing buses, and finding ways to increase bus use. By increasing the number of students utilizing our bus systems, the number of cars on the road can be greatly reduced. There are other issues that we face that are more long term, such as the rebuilding of our freeway onramps, and the building of a second Noah, South corridor. These are issues that will take time and funding, which is not currently available. We can start planning for these now, so that when funds do become available work can begin right away. 11) I feel that the City of Ukiah can be instrumental is working with other agencies to improve our public transit system. Currently, the Mendocino Transit Agency offers routes that are confusing and important parts of the City are without service. I believe the City of Ukiah can work with MTA to improve bus stops, routes, and schedules. The Traffic Engineering Committee can study transit districts such as the Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District to see what they do that works, such as better bus stop locations. The City of Ukiah is working in the right direction in developing a Transit Center. I would like to see the City work with the Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District to improve our public transit access to the Bay Area. By doing this, I strongly believe that we can reduce the number of vehicles using our roads. I also feel that having buses available to the Bay Area will decrease repair costs for Hwy 101, which can free up money for important projects, such as rebuilding onramps to meet our current and future needs. I have already mentioned how I would encourage the City to work with the School District to improve their bus system. I also believe that it is time to evaluate how effectively our system of stop signs work. There are a few streets where stops signs are actually causing congestion, and there are streets where stops signs are needed to improve safety not only for drives, but for pedestrians as well. A few years ago I wrote a letter to the City Council regarding this issue. My letter was forwarded to the Traffic Engineering Committee. I received a response stating that the Committee was waRRing for the Traffic Study to be completed before any changes are made. To me, while the Committee has been waRRing, traffic conditions have worsened and action needs to be taken sooner than later. I also feel that the City of Ukiah can start the planning process for improving our roadways for both vehicles and pedestrians. Sate Street, from Perkins to Talmage, is Pa~ 2 paved over concrete. By stripping the asphalt and repairing the concrete roadway, we can reduce future costs of repairs. I have had the pleasure of walking around my neighborhood. What has surprised me is just how deteriorated most of our sidewalks are. The City can take steps right now to improve the conditions of our sidewalks, such as developing guidelines for how new sidewalks are to be installed and what materials they are to be made out of. For many of our sidewalks, if two people are walking together, or a person is in a wheelchair, they have to utilize our streets because sidewalks are either too narrow, do not exist, or are blocked by poles or recently planted trees. Developing a plan to improve our street lights will ensure greater public safety. So will adding crossing lights to our major crosswalks. I have seen in Sacramento and San Francisco stop lights that are used solely for cross walks. They have greatly improved safety for pedestrians and do not cause an increase in traffic conditions. They also have the added benefit of slowing traffic down on long stretches of roads. This type of system could easily be utilized between Gobbi and Talmage. I would start planning the replacement of our stop light system. San Francisco uses a system that is hardwired to their traffic center. This allows them to adjust the lights during the day to relieve traffic congestion. Currently, our stop lights use sensors embedded into the streets. They are not the easiest to adjust and when the sensors fail, the City has to spend money to replace them. A hardwired system would greatly improve traffic congestion and reduce costs of maintenance. I wo~tld also look at utilizing stop lights that use LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) instead of tradition light bulbs. LEDs do not have filaments, so they never burn out, which would save the City money in bulb replacement. An issue that affects my driving on a daily basis is blind comers at intersections. By working with homeowners to remove bushes and reduce the size of fences, the City can improve sightlines for drivers, which would improve public safety. The City could also evaluate the location of parking spaces near intersections to see if they are having a negative impact on traffic. Near my residence, the intersection of Mill and State is a perfect example. The parking spaces on West Mill reduce the width of the road and cause turning vehicles to come almost to a stop. This causes traffic on State Street to back up, which causes congestion. By removing these parking spaces traffic flow will be improved and congestion lightened. I would also encourage the City to take a look at the trees along State Street. Many of these trees are now blocking business signs, which causes drivers to have to greatly ~low down, which causes more congestion. I also find this to be anti-business and another example of bad planning, but one that can easily be corrected. 12) I want to see a Ukiah that respects the needs of all citizens, no matter what their income level or social status. I want to see a Ukiah where everyone is encouraged to get involved in local government and where growth is not completely blocked. Paae ~l I would also like to see a Ukiah that is better connected to the Bay Area, which will expand our understanding of Smart Growth issues and allow greater access to cultural events and educational facilities. I also see a Ukiah that develops strong redevelopment plans that allow for the replacement of structures that are not meeting our current and future needs. Such a plan will allow current structures to be replaced by ones that will last 50 to 100 years. By improving the way that our structures function and look will greatly improve how people feel about our community, which could reduce crime and improve our morale. New structures can also take advantage of entire lot sizes. Such a plan will also allow the City to work with larger developers, who have been looking to invest in our community. For me, the biggest thing that I can envision is a community that celebrates its past by restoring our Downtown. Thousands of communities around the world have proven that be restoring their core business districts, the tax base and tourism increase. This brings more money into our community that can be used for public safety and redevelopment. Ukiah is a great place to be raised and we have the ability to make life here even better. We have plenty of room within the City limits to expand our housing stock by utilizing multi-story structures and mixed-use developments. By working together, instead of against each other, we can develop plans that meet our current and future needs without sacrificing what makes Ukiah special. 13) I am currently a member of the Demolition Permit Review Committee and I am submitting my application for reappointment. 14) I do not have any projects or conflicts of interest that would stop me from serving on the Traffic Engineering Committee. Thank you, ~ William D. French, Jr. Paa~ ~1 ITEM NO. 11b DATE: June 21,2006 A~iENDA ~UMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: DZSCUSSZON AND POSSZBLE APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAND~'NG FOR PRELZMTNARY REVZEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTZAL WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY: Councilmember Crane, City Manager Horsley and City Attorney Rapport have participated in several meetings with representatives from Hopland Public Utility District ("Hopland"), Millview County Water District ("Millview"), Willow County Water District ('~Villow"), Calpella County Water District ("Calpella") and Redwood Valley County Water District ("Redwood"). The participants in these meetings have discussed developing additional water supplies to serve their customers. The discussions have also focused on a potential project in the Hopland area that would divert water from the Russian River during the winter, store that water in a reservoir located in the area, and use that water in the summer to increase the water available to each agency. This proposed project raises many issues that must be explored and resolved before the parties will know whether there is a benefit to them. These issues include whether the project is feasible, how the stored water can be made available for use by the different agencies located upstream from the storage site, each agency's need for additional water supplies based on its existing water rights, the availability of water under those rights and the cost of water made available under the proposed project. The discussions among the agencies have focused on (1) the need to develop a way for the agencies to cooperate on this or other projects to increase water supply and (2) the basic feasibility of this project. The proposal is to start by exploring the basic feasibility of this project which will potentially lead to a structure for general cooperation among the agencies on this or other projects. Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACT]:ON: Discuss, revise and/or approve or disapprove MOU contained in Attachment I and, if approved, authorize the City Manager to sign the MOU on behalf of the City and revise and/or approve or disapprove the License Agreement in Attachment 2. ALTERNA'rZVE COUNCI'L POLTCY OP'FZONS: N/A Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Dave Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. MOU ityn H Manager MOU among Ukiah, Millview, Willow, Calpella, and Redwood Valley Water Districts and Hopland Public Utility District Page 2 of 3 Hopland has developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding, Attachment 1, to explore that basic feasibility. Under the MOU, the parties would appoint an agent to develop a Request for Proposal, solicit bids and select an engineering consultant to investigate the basic feasibility of the project, subject to the right of any party to veto the agent's selection of the consultant. (MOU, (ii3, p. 2.) The agent could be a party to the MOU or a non-party. The specific tasks to be undertaken by the consultant are set forth in paragraph 3 of the MOU on pages 2-3. In addition, the parties would seek a License Agreement, Attachment 2, with the owner of the property where the reservoir would be constructed, providing access to the property for the purpose of undertaking the feasibility study. The License would remain in effect from June 1, 2006 to September 1, 2006. In addition, the property owner agrees to provide a two year "right of first refusal" to the parties to negotiate an agreement for development of the project on the owner's property before the owner may offer the property to anyone else for this purpose. The MOU provides that the Agent will not sign a contract with the consultant until the property owner signs the License Agreement. (MOU, (ii7, p. 4.) To keep costs down, the feasibility study would rely on existing data and would not involve extensive field investigations. Based on such basics as the size of the watershed, potential diversions from the Russian River permissible under the August 15, 1997, State Water Resource Control Board Staff Report, entitled: Proposed Actions to be Taken by the Division of Water Rights on Pending Water Rights Applications within the Russian River Watershed, a water availability analysis, and construction and financing costs, the consultant would estimate a potential yield for the project and the cost per acre foot. Based on this information, each agency could decide whether it has an interest in further exploring the feasibility of the project. (id.) The MOU places a cap of $90,000 on the cost of the study and obligates each agency to contribute equally up to $15,000 each. (MOU, 96, p. 3.) The City Council might consider any or all of the following modifications to the MOU along with whether it approves the MOU and authorizes the City Manager or the Mayor to sign it on the City's behalf. 1. Possibly add a new paragraph F, stating: The Public Agencies recognize an on-going need to cooperate with each other to improve water availability and water service to their customers. They intend to explore ways to facilitate that cooperation, whether or not the Proposed Project is determined to be feasible. This may be more appropriate as a separate discussion between the parties however Council discussion of the desirability of such a cooperative effort would be beneficial. 2. Adding language to paragraph 3, requiring the Agent to obtain approval from each Public Agency for the content of the Request for Proposal and of the proposed contract with the consultant. The language could include a time limit for each agency to indicate MOU among Ukiah, Millview, Willow, Calpella, and Redwood Valley Water Districts and Hopland Public Utility District Page 3 of 3 its approval or disapproval and provide that a failure to act within that time shall be deemed approval. 3. The reference in paragraph 4 to the "award of a contract on a time and materials basis" might be deleted or replaced with "award of a contract subject to a fixed fee, not to exceed fee or fee based on time and materials, as determined by the Public Agencies,..." 4. The Council may want to consider a lower contribution to the cost of the study, because the engineering analysis is based on existing data to keep the cost down. 5. Paragraph 5 currently states: Upon the receipt of the Report, representatives of the Public Agencies shall convene to determine whether the Proposed Project is feasible. Upon determination that the Proposed Project is feasible, the Public Agencies shall then determine the structure for proceeding with the supervision and finalization of the Proposed Project, including but not limited to the formation of a Joint Powers Agency for the purpose of completing and managing the Proposed Project. Paragraph 5 might be revised to anticipate multiple stages in evaluating the feasibility and desirability of the Proposed Project. The proposed study is a very basic and preliminary feasibility study. Even if each agency decides, based on the study, that it has an interest in further exploring the project, that decision does not necessarily mean that the project is feasible. It may only mean that additional studies are warranted to further explore feasibility. It may be premature to go directly from review of the results of this preliminary study to "completing and managing the Proposed Project." 6. A provision might be added giving any agency that elects not to pursue the project further to recover its contribution to the cost of the proposed feasibility study or any further studies from the other participants or a new party that wants to join in the project. 7. The License Agreement does not prevent the property owner from selling the property during the two year "right of first refusal" period. It just obligates him to negotiate with the agencies before negotiating with anyone else over the development of a reservoir on the property. The parties may want to attempt, at least, to negotiate a provision prohibiting the owner from selling the property or using the reservoir site in any way that would interfere with the reservoir project for the two year period without first negotiating with the parties, and it may want to make that agreement binding on the property owner's successors or assigns. The agreement could require that signatures are notarized and allow the agencies to record the License Agreement. Staff is requesting Council's discussion and direction on this item. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY This Agreement is made by and among the following parties: the CITY OF UKI,-XH, a General Law City; HOPLAND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a Special District'.. MILI.VIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District: CALPELLA COU'NTY WATER DISTRICT, a C~mnty Water District; and REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. a County Water District (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Public Agencies"). RECITALS ho B. The Public Agencies are desirous of developing additional public water supply; A project has been proposed by which the Public Agencies would impound 10,000 acre feet of unappropriated Winter Russian River Flows (hereinafter the "Proposed Project"); C. D. E. An impoundment site is being offered to the Public Agencies by a property owner controlling the entire impoundment site presently zoned for water impoundment. The foregoing provides the Public Agencies with a common interest in determining the feasibility for undertaking the Proposed Project and to determine the appropriate structure for doing so; The Public Agencies now desire to establish the general terms and conditions b)' which they will collectively define the Proposed Project. AGREEMENT In consideration of the foregoing and the provisions stated herein, the Public Agencies agree as follows: 1. Cooperation. Each Public Agency agrees to cooperate with the Public Agencies in implementing the purposes of this Agreement. 2. Appointment of Agent. The Public Agencies appoint as Agent of the Public Agencies to implement this Agreement on behalf of the Public Agencies who shall hereafter be designated as the "Agent." Page I of 8 3. Agent to Employee Engineer to Perform Calculations and Estimates, Agent will employ an engineer following the issuance ora Request for Proposals and Qualifications. The Agent shall select the most qualified proposal and notify each of thc parties hereto, who shall then have fifteen (! 5) days to veto thc selection. The Engineer shall be tasked to perfc, rm the following preliminary calculations and estimates: Estimate the watershed which would contribute water for storage in a reservoir to be constructed On land described in the attached deed. The engineer shall utilize his best approximate judgment as to the positioning of that reservoir utilizing USGS maps and any general observations of the property offered as a p)'oposed reservoir site. b. Estimate the periods of time within which it might be possible to store watcr in a reservoir constructed utilizing the 1997 SWRCB report recommending when diversions of water may occur upon the Russian River without likelihood of harming fishery resources or other water users when there is sufficient flow. C. Estimate from rainfall records and downstream gauge readings on the Rassian River when releases of storage are not occurring in dry years from Lake Mendocino storage the number of days in which water might be stored in such a reservoir and the possible storage amounts utilizing a bypass requirement for fish life within the stream downstream of the proposed reservoir site that the Engineer finds reasonable after conversing with knowledgeable fishery experts a~d personnel of the SWRCB who are currently using guidelines as to the maximum mounts of natural flow which may be diverted without presumptively creating potential impacts upon anadromous fish. That methodology is called a Water Availability Analysis and utilizes a criteria known as CFII which has been agreed to by the CDFG and NMFS for the Russian River Tributiaries. do The engineer chosen will then make an estimate based upon the 1976-7'.,' drought cycle and the 1988-92 drought cycle as to thc amounts of yield which might be stored and carried over in such a reservoir and of the range of size that would provide an efficient reservoir for the likely yield. The engineer will then estimate construction costs and any relocation costs in the broadest way based upon Construction News Record estimates for typic,fi construction of similar types in similar areas. The engineer will then apply typical financing and operation and maintenance costs and meet with the participants to discuss the assumptions, the range of the variables and the likely costs for reliable water supply similar to that required for domestic and industrial customers and the costs for non reliable water supply or interruptible supplies that might be available during normal or above no)xnal |)taft: Page 2 of 8 water conditions. It is recognized that such a preliminary estimate procedure will not be able to anticipate temperature problems with release of water from the proposed reservoir to substitute for Lake Mendocino supplies and the release regime which would allow water flows within the mainstem of the Russian River lo be both utilized and not to create potential contentions of disadvantageous conditions to fishery resources because of the substitulion and the lack of flow from Lake Mendocino to the point where substitute supplies will enter the mainstem of the Rusgian River. h. It is recognized that the Engineer performing these works will not be able to anticipate all Division of Dam Safety requirements or any peculiar earthquake conditions which may exist in the area. It is recognized that the Engineer will be creating only a general understanding of the range of costs and obstacles and exactitude is not to be emphasized over obtaining sufficient information to determine general economic feasibility of the concept. However, the E~tgineer shall conduct such borings as may be reasonably necessary to identify seismic issues as may be relevant to the feasibility of the construction of the conl:emplated impoundment. 4, Issuance of Contract and Notice to Proceed. Upon receipt of proposals in r¢-spons¢ to the Request for Proposals, the parties shall convene and ascertain the successful proposer. The parties will then collectively authorize the Agent to award a contract on a time and materials basis and thereupon the Agent shall supervise the contract performance and report regularly to the parties to this Agreement. 5, R~eipt of Report. Upon the receipt of the Report, representatives of the Public Agencies shall convene to determine whether the Proposed Project is feasible. Upon determination that the Proposed Project is feasible, the Public Agencies shall then determine the structure for proceeding with the supervision and finalization of the Proposed Project, including but not limited to the formation of a Joint Powers Agency for the purpose of completing and managing the Proposed Project. 6, Dedication of Funds. The Public Agencies have identified the cost of the Project Identification as being up to NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($90,000). Each party, to this Agreement has received authorization of its governing body to contribute on apro rata basis to the cost of preparing the Project Definition Report at a maximum cost to each Agency (,f FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000). It is agreed that the potential water resource from the Project shall likewise by apportioned on apro rata basis among the parties hereto. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as committing any party to participation in the Project, once defined. Page 3 of 8 SI/gOd ~lOg fig~ LOL=~I AHW~N -£ H~RdO~glHHD ~:gl 90-gO-gO 7. License for Entry and Right to Negotiate First. Prior to execution of' a contriver with the Engineer committing to expenditure of' funds for the work, the Agent shall obtain £rom the owner of the property of the four proposed alternative water storage sites a license for entry onto the property in substantially the form as that auached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorperated herein by this reference. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the final agreement among the parties. It is the complete and exclusive expression of the parties' agreement on the matters contained in thi~ Agreement. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements between lhe parties on the matters contained in this Agreement are expressly merged into and superseded b)/this Agreement. 9. Counterparts. Thc parties may execute this Agreement in counterparts, each of which is deemed an original and all of'which constitute only one agreement. 10. Captions. The descriptive headings ofthe sections of this Agreement are for convenience only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is made this 26"' day of April, 2006 and is effective as of that date. CITY OF UKIAH, a General City HOPLAND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a Special District by: by' Its: Its: MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District by: by: lis: CALPELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District Its: REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District by: Its: by: Its: Page 4 of 8 Recording Requested by and when recorded send to: EXHIBIT "A" LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement is made this day of ,2006 by and between ("Licensor") and ._, Agent for the CITY OF UKIAH, a General Law City; HOPLAND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a Special District; MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; CALPELLA COl INTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; and REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Agencies") (the "Licensee"). WHEREAS, Licensor is the owner of that certain real property commonly referred to as , Mendocino County Assessor's Parcel No(s).: ...... , more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). WHEREAS. l.icensee desires To obtain permission to perform certain acts on Licensor's Property, NOW THEREFORE it is agreed as follows: I. Licensor grants to Licensee a Licensee, or Licensee's designee, to enter the Property, upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice to Licensor, for the purpose of obtaining inlbrmation relative to the Property. including but not limited to seismic characteristics and geological characteristics of the Properyt, in order to gather sufficient intbrrnation so that Licensee's designee Drali: 0.~/05/06 Page 5 of 8 a. bo c. do Estimate the watershed which would contribute water for storage in a reservoir to be constructed on land described in the attached deed, The engineer shitll utilize his best approximate judgment as to the positioning of that reservoir utilizing USGS maps and any general observations of the property offered as a p~'oposed reservoir site. Estimate the periods of time within which it might be possible to store water in a reservoir constructed utilizing the 1997 S WRCB report recommending when diversions of water may occur upon the Russian River without likelihood of harming fishery resources or other water users when there is sufficient flow. Estimate from rainfall records and downstream gauge readings on the Russian River when releases of storage are not occurring in dry years from Lake Mendocino storage the number of days in which water might be stored ia such a reservoir and the possible storage amounts utilizing a bypass requirement for fish life within the stream downstream of the proposed reservoir site that the Engineer finds reasonable after conversing with knowledgeable fishery experts and personnel of the $WRCB who are currently using guidelines as to the maximum amounts of natural flow which may be diverted without presumptively c rearing potential impacts upon anadromous fish. That methodology is called a Water Availability Analysis and utilizes a criteria known as CFII which has been agreed to by the CDFG and NMFS for the Russian River Tributiaries. The engineer chosen will then make an estimate based upon the 1976-77 drought cycle and the 1988-92 drought cycle as to the amounts of yield which might be stored and carried over in such a reservoir and of the range of size that would provide an efficient reservoir for the likely yield. The engineer will then estimate construction costs and any relocation costs in the broadest way based upon Construction News Record estimates for typical construction of similar types in similar areas. The engineer will then apply typical financing and operation and mainteaance costs and meet with the participants to discuss the assumptions, the range of the variables and the likely costs for reliable water supply similar to that required for domestic and industrial customers and the costs for non reliable water sttpply or interruptible supplies that might be available during normal or above normal water conditions. It is recognized that such a preliminary estimate procedure will not be amc to anticipate temperature problems with release of water from the proposed reservoir to substitute for Lake Mendocino supplies and the release regime which would allow water flows within the mainstem of the Russian River to be both t~.tilized Drat~: 05/05/06 Page 6 of 8 and not to create potential contentions of disadvantageous conditions to fishery resources because of the substitution and the lack of flow from Lake Mendocino to the point where substitute supplies will eater the mainstem of the Russian River. h. It is recognized that the Engineer performing these works will not be able to anticipate all Division of Dam Safety requirements or any peculiar earthqaake conditions which may exist in the area. It is recognized that the Engineer will be creating only a general understanding of the range of costs and obstacles :md exactitude is not to be emphasized over obtaining sufficient information to determine general economic feasibility of the concept. However, the Engineer shall conduct such borings as may be reasonably necessary to identify seismic issues as may be relevant to the feasibility of the construction of the contemplated impoundment. 2. The License is personal to the Licensees, their Agent and their Engineer/Designee. It is nonassignable and any attempt to assign this License terminates it. 3. This License shall remain in effect for the period of June 1, 2006 through September 1, 2006. 4. Except as to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Licensor, Licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Licensor and/or their officers, employees and ageuts harmless from any and all loss, damage, claim for damage, liability, expense, or cost, including attorneys' fees which axise out of or is in any way connected with the performance of work under this Agreement by Licensee or any of Licensee's employees, agents, or subcontractors and from all claims by Licensee's employees, subcontractors and agents for compensation for services rendered to Licensee in the performance of this Agreement, notwithstanding that the Licensor may have benefitted from their services. This indemnification provision shall apply to any acts or omissions, willful misconduct or negligent conduct, whether active or passive, on th~' part of Licensee or of Licensee's employees, subcontractors or agents. 5. Licensor understands that Licensees are spending significant public funds for the purpose of conducting these investigations and in doing so, Licensor agrees that Licens,~r will not enter into negotiations with any other party for an agreement to store winter flows of the Russian River or any project similar to that contemplated by Agent and the Agencies for a period of twenty-four months following the date of this Agreement, without first granting to Age.~t's Agencies as a collective group, the opportunity to negotiate an agreement with Licensor for a period of ninety (90) days. Draft: 0510~/06 Page 7 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this License Agreement as of the day and year first above written. LICENSOR: LICENSEE: Agent for the CITY OF UKIAH, a General Law City; HOPLAND PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, a Special District; MILLVIEW COUNIY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; WILLOW COUN'IT WATER DISTRICT, a County W;tter District; CALPELLA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District; and REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a County Water District Draft: 0~/0~/06 Page 8 of 8 ITEM NO. llc DATE: June 21,2006 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BALLOT MEASURE (S) FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION At the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election, the electorate will have an opportunity to consider three vacancies on the City Council (Mayor Ashiku, and Councilmembers Baldwin and McCowen) in addition to ballot measures. Staff is requesting Council discuss possible ballot measure(s) for the November election. A "tentative calendar" for the November 2006 election is attached for Council's consideration. This matter is being presented in an effort to provide adequate time for research and to meet the deadlines imposed for the November election. Final ballot wording of a measure needs to be prepared for Council's approval no later than its July 19th meeting in order to be placed on the Board of Supervisors' agenda. Also, a resolution calling for the November 7th election will be presented to the City Council for consideration at the July 19th meeting. It would be appropriate to include wording for a ballot measure(s) in that resolution. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the matter and provide direction to staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Determine that a ballot measure is not to be presented to the electorate. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Prepared by: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Coordinated with:Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney, Attachments: 1. Comprehensive General Law Cities General Municipal Election Calendar APPROVED: .-(~'~~~'~x, Candace Horsley, City Manager ASR' November 7, 2006 ballot measure consideration \ ATTACHUENTI General Law or Charter Cities General Municipal Election t¢onsolido~c~ with Counfy~ November 7, 2006 Laws in effect in 2006 (Calendar laws updated 11/4/2005) ~ Date(s) May 19 July 3 July3 to July17 July 10 July 17 to August 11 July 18 July 19 July 31 August 1 August 11 August 11 August 11 August 16 August 16 August 17 August 24 September 11 to October 24 October 5 October 9 to October 31 October 17 October 23 October 24 October 26 October 31 November 1 to November 7 November 6 November 7 No Later Than December 22 December 5 December 22 30 days after assuming office January 31,2007 April 1,2007 E -172 -127 -127 -113 -120 -113 -88 -112 -111 -98 -88 -88 -88 -83 -83 -82 -75 -57 -14 -33 -29 -7 -21 -15 -14 -12 -7 -6 -1 0 45 E+28+17+? minus ~to E mlnus~ Action Suggested Last Day to File Petitions Regarding Measure Suggested Last Day for Council to Adopt Resolutions Election Official to Publish Notice of Election - Candidates Last Day to Adopt Regulations for Candidates Statements Filing Period for Nomination Papers and Candidate's Statements Suggested Last Day to Call Election For Ballot Measures Suggested Last Day to Post Notice of Deadline for Filing Arguments Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - Semi-Annual Statement Suggested Last Day to File Arguments / Must Be 14 days after Council calls Election Suggested Last Day to File Rebuttal Arguments/10 Days after Arguments Last Day to Call Election For Ballot Measures Last Day to File Nomination Papers Last Day to File Nomination Papers - Extended Filing Period Last Day to Withdraw Measure(s) from Ballot Secretary of State to Determine Order of Names on Ballot Time to Cancel Election - Insufficient Candidates Filing Period for Write-in Candidate Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - 1st Pre-election Statement Voters May Request Absentee/Vote by Mail Ballots with Regular Applications Last Day to Mail Sample Ballots and Polling Place Notices Last Day to Register to Vote Last Day to File for Write-in Candidate Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - 2nd Pre-election Statement Last Day for Election Official to Publish Notice of Nominees Emergency/Late Absent Voting Period Last Day for Council to Adopt Procedures to Resolve Tie Vote ELECTION DAY Last Day to Declare Results & Install Newly Elected Mayor, Councilmember(s), Etc. Reorganize Council and Choose Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern Filing of Statement of Economic interests Last Day to File Campaign Expenditure Statements - Semi-Annual Statement Last Day to Submit Report on Measures to Secretary of State (R 11/14~2005) Prepared by Martin + Chapman Co. www.martinchapman.com ITEM NO. ]]d DATE: 6/21/06 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: Selection of Council Subcommittee for Chamber of Commerce Contract Discussions and Appointment of Alternate for Chamber Board Representation The Chamber's contract and funding for the 2005/2006 fiscal year was approved last month. The City and Chamber are now preparing to discuss the fiscal year 2006/2007 contract. Staff is requesting Council to appoint a subcommittee of two Councilmembers for preliminary discussions with staff and Chamber representatives on the upcoming contract terms. In addition, Council Member Rodin as the City representative to the Chamber Board has experienced several conflicts with being able to attend some of the board meetings. She is requesting that the Council select an alternate to attend meetings when she is not available. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appoint Council subcommittee for Chamber contract discussions and select alternate for chamber board. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Councilmember Rodin Candace Horsley, City Manager Candace Horsley, City Manager None erCandace Horsley, City AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Item No 1 le Date' June 21, 2006 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH VERN AND MARILYN WATKINS If acceptable, after discussion in closed session, Council will approve a letter of agreement with Vern and Marilyn Watkins. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Approve Letter of Agreement with Vern and Marilyn Watkins. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Sue Goodrick, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager APPROVED City ~anager Candace Horsley,