HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-23 PacketCITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Adjourned Meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
July 23, 2007
9:00 a.m.
An informal Coffee Reception will begin at 9:00 a.m. A Closed Session will be conducted
beginning at 9:30 a.m. with all other items of business to follow as soon thereafter as they
may be held. A public hearing will be conducted at 2:00 p.m.
9:30 a.m. Closed Session
1. ROLL CALL
2. CLOSED SESSION
a. Interview, and Possibly Select Potential City Manager Position Candidate for Applicants
Received by Ralph Andersen & Associates for the City Manager Recruitment
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
4. 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. Acceptance of FAA Grant # 3-06-0268-10, in the Amount of $195,000.00 for Airport Storm
Drain Project, Phase II, Design
b. Authorize the Execution of Amendment No. 3 to the Winzler & Kelly Consultant Service
Agreement Dated June 27, 2002 and the Expenditure of an Additional $6,000 from the
Orchard Ave Bridge Fund for the Purpose of Incorporating Additional Design Changes
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are
interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not
on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3)
minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (2:00 PM)
a. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Review And Approval Of City Council Comment Letter Responding To The Ukiah Valley
Area Plan (UVAP) Environmental Impact Report Notice Of Preparation
8. NEW BUSINESS
a. Award Consultant Service Agreement to SHN Consulting Engineers with Compensation Not
to Exceed $21,500.00, Funded by FEMA, for the Preparation of Plans and Specifications
for the Storm Damage Repair of the Fish Hatchery Easement; Authorize the City
Manager to Execute the Consultant Service Agreement
b. Appointment to Commission and Committee for Term Expiration/Vacancies Relative to the
Parks, Recreation and Golf Commission, Airport Commission, and Demolition Permit
Review Committee; and Resolution Appointing Incumbents to the PRGC
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
10. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specifc 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 19th day of July, 2007.
Linda C. Brown, Deputy City Clerk
ITEM NO. 4a
DATE: July 23, 2007
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF FAA GRANT # 3-06-0268-10, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $195,000.00 FOR AIRPORT STORM DRAIN PROJECT, PHASE II, DESIGN
SUMMARY: The City of Ukiah has filed an FAA grant request earlier this year to
continue the Airport Storm Drain Project. These funds are for the design portion of the
project and allow staff to select an aviation engineering firm and complete the design this
calendar year. Next year staff will request additional FAA funding for construction
monies and complete the project.
The grant is funded from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) at 95%. CalTrans will
also participate at approximately 5% leaving an unfunded balance of $5,425.00 to be paid
from the Airport Fund.
Per the attached letter, this grant offer must be accepted by the Council and signed by
appropriate parties and returned to the FAA by July 31, 2007. Airport Commission has
reviewed the grant application on June 5, 2007, and is recommending approval and Staff
concurs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept FAA grant # 3-06-0268-10, and authorize
the City Manager and City Attorney to sign grant documents
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY ACTION: Remand back to the Airport
Commission for further review, or decline the grant
CITIZEN ADVISED: N/A
REQUESTED BY: Paul Richey, Airport Manager
PREPARED BY: Paul Richey, Airport Manager
COORDINATED VJTTH: Candace Horsley, City Manager, Airport Commission
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Grant Documents
2) Grant Application
APPROVED: y%'~. ~~
Candace Horsley, City
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
July 3, 2007
CBRTIFIBD MAIL
Mr. Paul Richey
Airport Manager
City of Ukiah
1403 South State Street
Ukiah, California 95402
Dear Mr. Richey
Afluuilment #
San Francisco Airports District Office
831 Mttten Road, Room 210
Burlingame, California 94010-1303
Airport: Dkiah Municipal, CA; AIP Project No. 3-06-0268-10;
Grant Offer
Enclosed are two (2) original sets of the approved Grant Offer for the
above project.
Acceptance of the Grant Offer will obligate the Sponsor to accomplish the
described development. The United States commits itself to participate in
the allowable cost of the project not to exceed the amount shown on the
Grant Offer. The offer must be accevted before or on July 31 2007. Both
seta of the Grant Offer must be signed, dated certified and attested with
stamp.
Basic considerations are that members of the Sponsor's governing body know
the full content of the Grant Offer and that the method of acceptance
conforms to local law.
The official of the sponsor authorized to accept the enclosed Grant Offer
shall accept same by signing and date said offer. The Sponsor's attorney
shall certify that the acceptance complies with all applicable laws and
constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the sponsor by executing the
"CEATIFCATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY". The date of said certificate shall be
the Same 88, or later than the data of the aracn ti nn.
When the document is fully executed, certified, attested and appropriate
seals are impressed, please return one (1) executed set of the Grant
Agreement to this office.
sincere `~/~~ ~
re ards ~C///
Manager, Airports District Office
Enclosures
~'' GRANT AGREEMENT
. Department of Transportation A~iat.~1171E~Rf;;~ _
Federal Aviation AdmFnistration
Date of Offer: July 3, 2007 Recipient: City of Ukiah
(Herein called ["
Project Number: 3-06-0268-10 Airport: Ukiah Municipal
OFFER
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE f~tIRED STATES, HEREBY
OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States' share, Ninety-five percent (95%) of the allowable costs
incurred in accomplishing the project consisting of the following:
"Improve Airport Drainage (Design) Phase 2"
as more particularly described in the Project Application dated April 10, 2007.
The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this Offer sheil~r::be 5195,000.00 for airport
development.
This offer is made in accordance with and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49, United States
Code, herein called Title 49 U.S.C. Acceptance and execution of this er shall comprise a Grant Agreeme , as
provided by Title 49 U.S.C., constituting the contractual obligation an rights f the U ' State the
Sponsor.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION anage ,San Francisco vports District ice
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The Sponsor agrees to comply with the Special Conditions as described in Attachment A.
ACCEPTANCE
The Sponsor agrees to accomplish the project in compliance with the terms and conditions contained herein, in
the Project Application, and in the May 2007 "Terms and Conditions of Accepting Airport Improvement Program
Grants" signed on June 24. 2007 .
Executed this _ day of , 20_
Signature of Sponsor's Designated Official Representative
(Seal) Title
CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY
I, ,acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby
certify: That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter into the foregoing Grant Agreement under the laws
of California. Further, I have examined the foregoing Grant Agreement, and the actions taken by said Sponsor
relating thereto, and find that the acceptance thereof by said Sponsor's official representative has been duly
authorized and that the execution thereof is in all respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws of the
said State and Title 49 U.S.C. In addition, for grants involving projects to be carried out on property not owned by
the Sponsor, there are no legal impediments that will prevent full performance by the Sponsor. Further, it is my
opinion that the said Grant Agreement constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance with
the terms thereof.
Executed this _ day of , 20_
Signature of Sponsor's Attorney
~}'UC~1f1'fEit"t° 9'"
Version 7103
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. DATE SUBMITTED
Apri13, zoo? Applicant Identifier
1.TYPE OF SUBMISSION
Application ~ Pre-application 3. DATE RECENED BY STATE State Application lderrtfier
® Construction ^ Construction
^ Non-Construction ; ^Non-Construction 4. GATE RECENED BY AGENCY Federal Identifier
--
5. APPLICAN7INFORMATION
Legal Name: Organizational Unit: Ukiah Regional Airport
Ci of Ukiah Department: Airport
Organizational DUNS: 07-464-2893 Division:
Address: Name and telephone of person to be contacted on matters irrvoMng
Street: 300 Seminary Ave. this application (give area code)
Prefix: First Name: Carol
City: Ukiah Middle Name:
County: Mendocino Last Name: Ford
State: CA Zip Code: 95482 Suffix:
Country: United States Email: Ford~airportgrants.com
6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):
9 4- 6 0 0 0 4 4 6 Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code)
(650) 591 - 8308 (650) 591 - 8371
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION
^ New ®Continuation ^ Revision
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es) ~ ^
(See back of form for description of letters.) 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT (See back of form for Application Typesy
C
Other (Specify)
Other (spec(fy) 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration
10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NO,
2 0- 1 0 6
TITLE (Name of Program): Ai ort Improvement Pr ram t1. DESCRIPTNE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT:
1. Phase 2 Design for Storm Drain Reconstruction
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counh'es, States, etc):
City of Ukiah
13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
Start Date
5N 5/2007 Ending Date
9/30/2007 a. Applicant
istCon ressional District b. Project
1st
16. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 18.IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTNE ORDER
12372 PROCESS?
a. Federal $ 195,000. °0 a. res. THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 1
372
b. Applicant $ 5,425.°0 2
PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:
c, State $ 4,875.00 DATE
d. Local $ 0.00 b. No. ® PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O. 12372
e. Other $ 0.00 ^ FOR REVIEWM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE
t. Program Income $ g w 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
g. TOTAL $ 205,300.00 ^ Yes, If "Yes", attach an explanation ®No
18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AlL DATA IN THIS APPLICATIONlPREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH
THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a. Autlrorized Re resentative
Prefix First Name: Candace Middle Name:
Last Name: Horsley Suffix:
b. Title: City Manager c. Telephone: 707 483-6312
d. Signature of Autltodzed Represents' a e. Gate Signed: --2
Previous Editions Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev 9-2003)
Authodzed for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB CireWar A-1 D2
ITEM NO: 4b
MEETING DATE: 7/23/07
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE
WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED
JUNE 27, 2002 AND THE EXPENDITURE OF AN ADDITIONAL $6,000
FROM THE ORCHARD AVE BRIDGE FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL DESIGN CHANGES
SUMMARY: Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is staff's
recommendation that the City Manager be authorized to execute Amendment No. 3 to the
Winzler & Kelly Consultant Service Agreement dated June 27, 2002, and that an additional
expenditure of $6,000 from the Orchard Ave Bridge Fund, Fund 290, be approved for the
purpose of making additional plan changes to the final design plans of Orchard Ave Bridge
at Orr Creek. It is proposed that compensation for post final design changes be made on a
time and expense basis not to exceed the maximum of $6,000.
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Winzler & Kelly
Consultant Service Agreement dated June 27, 2002.
2. Authorize the expenditure of an additional amount not exceeding $6,000 from the
Orchard Ave Bridge Fund Balance, Fund 290.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS:
1. Abandon the Orchard Ave Bridge at Orr Creek Project and its related street
improvements and not authorize the execution of Amendment No. 3.
FUNDING:
Amount Budgeted From Acct. No. To Acct. No. Additional Funds Reauested
$884,373.00 290.9645.800.000 100.3001.250.000 $6,000.00
Citizens Advised: N/A
Requested by: Rick Kennedy, Project Manager
Prepared by: Rick Kennedy, Project Manager
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager, and Tim Eriksen, Public
Works Director
Attachments: 1. Cost Proposal for Additional Design Services
2. Proposed Amendment No. 3 to W& K Agreement
Approved:'
Candace Horsley, ity Manager
Page 2
July 23, 2007
Authorize the Execution of Amendment No. 3 to the Winzler & Kelly Consultant Service Agreement dated
June 27, 2002 and the Expenditure of an Additional $6,000 from the Orchard Ave Bridge Fund for the
Purpose of Incorporating Additional Design Changes
BACKGROUND: On November 1, 2006, the City Council authorized the execution of
Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $26,474.00 for the purpose of making major post final
design changes to the Project Plans in response to comments received from the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game
and the US National Marine Fisheries Service as a result of the City's application for a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification, a 1602 Stream Bank Alteration Permit, and a
Corps of Engineer's 404 Permit. The City received a confirming letter from the NCRWQCB
staff dated August 4, 2005 outlining the requested changes to the project design with the
additional stipulation that the Ciry provide documentation indicating the method by which
the City would require new development within the Brush Street Triangle to incorporate
Best Management Practices (BMP) to achieve long term storm water treatment of road
and onsite runoff for each new proposed development. Many of the requested changes
affected adjacent private property as well as affecting infrastructure that would eventually
be transferred to the County of Mendocino Transportation Department.
On August 18 and October 28, 2005, City Staff met with Dan Thomas and George Rau to
discuss the requested change in the relocation of the storm drainage outtall and the
incorporation of bio-swales for road runoff. Mr. Thomas consented to locating the drainage
ouffall to the west side of the bridge and outside the planned right of way and consented to
placing bio-swales on his property under qualified conditions. On November 9, 2005, City
staff met with representatives of the County Department of Transportation and Rural
Communities Housing Development Corporation to discuss the relocation of the drainage
outtall and the incorporation of bio-swales on private property. A consensus was reached
whereby the outtall would be relocated to the west side of the bridge and the bio-swales
would be located on the adjacent properties and be incorporated into the landscape design
of the future private developments. The property owners would maintain the bio-swales
and the City and County would hold the property owners harmless for any hazardous
waste spills originating within the roadway and draining into the bio-swales.
The Ciry received written notice from the NCRWQCB dated December 19, 2005, that the
City's application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification was denied, without
prejudice, because the revised plans and. requested documentation had not been
submitted. However, the notice did indicate that if the City submitted the requested design
changes within one year of the date of the denial, the City's application would be re-
activated and appropriate action taken. It was stipulated in Amendment No. 2 that the
requested design changes would be incorporated into the plans and the revised plans
submitted to the City by December 8, 2006. Winzler and Kelly submitted revised plans by
the deadline, but because of the ongoing design effort taking place for the proposed multi-
family, residential development on the adjacent RCHDC property (RCHDC Project), not all
the design changes could be finalized. This was communicated to NCRWQCB staff in the
City's letter dated December 12, 2006 with a request for an extension of time. It was stated
that the City of Ukiah with the cooperation of other project stakeholders had resolved
several major project issues and was very near in incorporating all of the requested
changes into the Final Plans.
Page 3
July 23, 2007
Authorize the Execution of Amendment No. 3 to the Winzler & Kelly Consultant Service Agreement dated
June 27, 2002 and the Expenditure of an Additional $6,000 from the Orchard Ave Bridge Fund for the
Purpose of Incorporating Additional Design Changes
On January 23, 2007, the NCRWQB nofrfied the City in writing that the request for an
extension to the application period for the Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 Water
Quality Certification had been denied and that the City would be required to submit a new
application.
At the request of Cathy McKeon, P.E. of Rau and Associates, Project Engineer for the
RCHDC Project, City staff met with representatives of the County of Mendocino
Transportation Department on March 8, 2007 to discuss requested changes to the
proposed bio-swales that were to be located on private property. Because of site
constraints and the need to locate the proposed residential structures closer to the west
side of the proposed extension of Orchard Ave, the Project Engineer for the RCHDC
Project requested that the City and County consider changing the typical street section to
include the bio-swale within the street right of way between what would be the edge of
pavement and the new curb. The need for benching the north side of Orr Creek was also
discussed. The City and County staff agreed to locate the bio-swales or grassy swales in
the street right of way and to include benching work under the proposed bridge including
transitions to the existing bank configuration. The requested changes require additional
revisions to the Final Plans which were not included in Amendment No. 3.
Attached is Winzler and Kelly's estimate of the cost to make the additional changes to the
Final Plans including revising the plan for the relocation of the grassy swales, changing
storm drain inlet locations, and incorporating new grading under and adjacent to the
bridge. Compensation would be made on a time and expense basis not to exceed the
maximum compensation of $6,000. Staff believes the proposed cost for making the
described changes is reasonable.
ATTACHMENT
WINZLERL~KELLY
C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S
July 3, 2007
Rick Kennedy
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482-5400
Ref: 02502-06001-32110
Re: Orchard Ave Bridge Project -Additional Design Services
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Based on the meeting on July 3, 2007 attended by Mike Kincaid, myself and you, Winzler &
Kelly was asked to prepare a cost proposal to provide additional design services for the above-
referencedproject.
Tasks include:
Revise Design Drawings to:
- Revise street sections to incorporate the bio-swales within the right-of-way
- Prepare a Grading Plan that includes the benching conform upstream and downstream
of the bridge including an irrigation system
Additional Project Management services to reflect the extended contract schedule and
additional work
Attached please find a proposed fee for these additional services. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
WINZLF,R & KELLY
~;.
~ ? ,-_.--
lt ~~ ._ 1. ,
Rick Jorgensen, P.E.
Project Engineer
as
Attachment
c: Mike Kincaid, Marc Solomon
• 495 Tesconi Circle, Santa Rosa, CA 954014696 ~
tel 707.523.1010 fax 707.527.8679
www.wand-kcom
v
m
a
~ ~
v o
o
~
~ "'
;; :
x- l0
try
o
Y
~ N
N
o
~°
~~
~°
.; .
~= E
a
~~ ~
z
to
'Q
a ~
to
~
a E
a
Z
~
r`
0
0
N
M
ATTACHMENT Z
CITY OF UKIAH
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DATED JUNE 27, 2002
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
All terms and conditions of the Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Ukiah (the
City) and Winzler and Kelly, Consulting Engineers (the Consultant), dated June 27, 2002 (the
Agreement) shall remain in full force and effect except as modirfied by this and previously executed
Amendments.
AMENDMENT AUTHORIZATION
The City may amend the Scope of Work of the Agreement pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs
5.05 and 8.02 of said Agreement. The Consultant shall perform any added work and/or not perform
any deleted work upon the execution of this amendment. Added work shall be performed on a time
and expense basis pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement.
AMENDED AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
Paraaragh 1.01 of the Agreement is modified by the addition of the followina~
The design services to be provided by the Consultant, shall be provided in three distinct phases: The
Design Service Phase (Preliminary and Final), the Post Final Design Change Phase, and the
Construction Management Service Phase. The Post Final Design Phase has been extended and it
shall consist of making additional design changes to the final plans and special provisions consistent
with the design changes requested by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and the
Department of Fish and Game which were incorporated in Amendment No. 2 and additional design
changes requested by the City. The additional design changes generally include locating the grassy
swales in the street right of way, revising storm drain inlet locations, providing benching of the north
bank of Orr Creek under the bridge with transitions to the existing bank configuration, and providing
irrigation service points. Staff has met with the Consultant and discussed the requested changes. The
tree replacement and re-vegetation plan will be performed by others. A complete scope of services
and estimate of labor effort for the extended Post Final Design Phase is provided in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
Paraaragh 3.03 of the Agreement is modified by the addition of the followina~
The scope of services of the extended Post Final Design Change Phase shall be completed no later
than August 30, 2007. Time is of the essence; the City's application to the North Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been denied, without
prejudice and the City has been notified that it must re-apply for the Federal Clean Water Act Section
401 Water Quality Certification.
Paraaraph 4.01 of the Aareement is modified by the addition of the followina•
The Design Service Phase is completed and the compensation for the Design Phase shall not exceed
$81,387.50 and this not to exceed monetary limit represents the final billing provided in the invoice
dated August 3, 2002. Compensation for the extended Post Final Design Change Phase shall be
made on a time and expense basis not to exceed a total maximum amount of $8,000.00.
Paraaraph 5.02 of the Aareement is modified by the addition of the followina•
Total payment for the Design Service Phase shall not exceed $81,387.50 and total compensation for
the extended Post Final Design Change Phase shall not exceed $6,000.00.
Paraaraph 7.01 of the Aareement is modified by the addition of the followina•
The documents and reports to be provided under the Post Final Design Change Phase including all
appropriate backup data as required by the Agreement, previously executed Amendments and this
Amendment No. 3 shall be and shall remain the property of the City.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT
The effective date of the Amendment is the date the Amendment is executed by the City.
AMENDMENT EXECUTION
The City and the Consultant agree to the provisions of this Amendment by signing below:
CITY OF UKIAH
Candace Horsley, City Manager Date
WINZLER AND KELLY. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Marc Solomon, Region Manager Date
END OF AMENDMENT
ITEM NO: 6a
DATE: July 23. 2007
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY: The owner of nine parcels (14.5 acres) in the southeast portion of the Airport Industrial
Park has applied to change the land use designation from "Industrial/Automotive Commercial" and
"Industrial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use." No development of this property is proposed at this
time, but a number of potential developers have expressed interest in pursuing approval of retail
commercial development. The existing "Industrial/Automotive Commercial" and "Industrial" land use
designations do not permit retail commercial development unless it is automotive related, whereas the
proposed land use designation would permit non-automotive related retail commercial development. Any
future development proposal would be subject to the Use Permit process and require Planning
Commission approval.
The purpose of this Agenda Item is to facilitate the conduct of a public hearing, provide an opportunity
for the Council to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendations, and potentially introduce the
Ordinance amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development.
The attachments to this ASR include the recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration and a complete
version of the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance with proposed language deletions
illustrated by •-`-~,l~o~ and language additions highlighted in yellow. Language is being modified to
reflect the proposed change in land use designations and to provide minor clarifications. The Land Use
Map at the end of the Ordinance has been modified to reflect the proposed rezoning of parcels.
(Continued on page 2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and 3) Introduce the Ordinance amending the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide direction to
Staff.
Citizen Advised: Noticed according to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code
Requested by: Property owners (Agent Gary Ackerstrom)
Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments:
i. Recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Amended Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance
3. Planning Commission minutes, dated June 13, 2007
4. Map of Airport Industrial Park and Rezone Area.
APPROVED:
Candace orsley, City Manager
1
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 3) included background
information regarding the Airport Industrial Park. It is reprinted here for the City Council.
History of the Airport Industrial Park
In 1979, the City proposed to annex the 138-acre Airport "Industrial" Park area into the City
limits. Prior to annexation approval, the City obtained a State grant to prepare a Specific Plan
for the area. In 1981, the City Council approved the Specific Plan and Planned Development
zoning regulations to implement the plan. Shortly thereafter, the annexation was approved.
The 1981 Planned Development regulations allowed only industrial land uses south of
Commerce Drive. Office commercial uses were allowed in the northwest corner of the site
north of Commerce Drive and up to Talmage Road. Highway oriented commercial land uses
(motels, service stations, and restaurants) were permitted in the northeast corner of the site
where Walmart, Jack-in-the-box and the Shell gas station are today.
The Planned Development regulations were modified many times over the ensuing years for a
variety of reasons. These reasons included amendments to allow more retail land uses,
amendments to establish a more comprehensive and clearer set of development standards,
amendments to allow the mixing of land uses, etc. As a result, the Airport Business Park has
evolved into a development of retail stores, lodging facilities, restaurants, and professional
offices. The Mendocino Brewing Company is the lone industrial land use in the Park.
The Airport Business Park was commonly referred to as the Redwood Business Park until the
City Redevelopment Agency acquired a number of parcels adjacent to the south. When this
acquisition occurred, the entire area was then referred to as the Airport Industrial Park.
Based on the evolution of development within the Park, it is now commonly referred to as the
Airport Business Park.
The Program Environmental Impact Report for Build-out of the Park-What is it?
In 1995, the City Council certified a "Program" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for build-out
of the Airport Business Park. Build-out was based on a series of development assumptions that
included types of land uses and building intensities and square footages. The EIR identified a
number of significant impacts that would result from build-out and included a comprehensive
mitigation program to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Over the years, the City has relied on
the Program EIR and has consistently imposed the mitigations on all new development.
To mitigate Walmart traffic, the Business Park property owners, Walmart, and the City made a
number of improvements to Talmage Road, Airport Park Boulevard, and Hastings Avenue.
Additionally, a Traffic Impact (Capital Improvement) fee was adopted for all future
development, so that additional required street and intersection improvements could be funded
as build-out occurred.
The proposed rezoning prompted a concern about traffic impacts because the permitted uses
under the proposed zoning classification would allow full retail commercial development where
the existing development would not. Retail commercial development generates more traffic
than industrial land uses or an auto-row type development. A traffic study was performed to
evaluate this change and the results are discussed below.
2
The Planned Development Ordinance -What is it?
As described above, the zoning regulations governing the Airport Business Park are contained
in an Ordinance separate from the Ukiah Municipal Code. This "Planned Development"
Ordinance implements the General Plan "Master Plan" designation for the site. It separates
the 138 acre area into six land use categories that contain separate allowed and permitted
land uses, development standards, an overall circulation plan, and a Section addressing
discretionary review requirements.
In 1999, the Planned Development Ordinance was amended by the City Council to designate
the 32 acres west of Airport Park Boulevard and south of Commerce Drive to
"Industrial/Mixed Use." This change broadened the types of uses that could be permitted in
this area. The designation was changed again in 2004 to "light Manufacturing/Mixed Use" to
provide for a compatible mix of light manufacturing activities, commercial land uses,
professional offices, and limited low density residential uses. Site planning and design
standards were adopted to require a higher level of architecture, landscaping and pedestrian
oriented design.
The applicant is requesting that this "Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use" zoning classification be
applied to the subject area and replace the "Industrial/Automotive Commercial" classification.
Why was the subject property zoned 'Industrial/Automotive Commercial?
In 1997, the 16 acres south of the Friedman Brothers Home Improvement Store and east of
Airport Park Boulevard were rezoned from °Industrial" to "Industrial/Automotive Commercial."
The purpose of that rezoning was to encourage and attract automobile sales and related land
uses while preserving opportunity for industrial development.
The Existing Capital (TrafFc) Improvement Program -What is it?
On May 7, 1997, the Ukiah City Council adopted resolution No. 97-70 establishing capital
improvement fees which are imposed on undeveloped parcels within the Airport Industrial
Park upon their development in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The capital
improvement fees are imposed on development within the Airport Industrial Park for the
purpose of financing the design and construction of street infrastructure improvements
needed to mitigate traffic impacts to off-site intersections resulting from increased traffic
generated by the new development within the AIP.
The remaining required traffic improvements involve the intersections of the Hastings
Ave./Washington St. and South State Street and Airport Park Boulevard and Talmage Road. The
Hastings Avenue improvements include land acquisitions on the north and south side of the
westbound approach to accommodate a new exclusive left turn lane and an existing
through/right turn lane and the construction of larger curb returns to accommodate turning
truck traffic. It also includes re-striping the eastbound approach to accommodate an exclusive
left turn lane on Washington St., and extending the two northbound through lanes on South
State Street north of Hastings Ave/Washington Street.
The Talmage Road/Airport Park Blvd. intersection improvements include the widening of the
north side of Talmage Road to accommodate a second left turn lane for westbound traffic and
the planned mitigation improvement for the US 101 off-ramp at Talmage Road involves the
widening of the north side of Talmage to accommodate the construction of an exclusive lane for
3
right turning vehicles. These improvements are in the currently in the design stage and
construction is planned for Summer 2008.
PROJECT ISSUES
There are a number of issues associated with the rezoning request that deserve discussion.
The following text identifies and analyzes those issues.
1. Anticipated Land Use: If the rezoning is approved, it is anticipated that retail
commercial and restaurant land uses will likely be proposed. This is a change from the "auto-
row" envisioned in 1997, and while consistent with the permitted land uses in the proposed
Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use classification, would not result in light manufacturing,
residential, or professional offices or a compatible mix of these uses.
The °auto-row" opportunity has been established for ten years, yet only one auto dealership
has proposed and approved. No industrial land uses have been proposed on the property for
at least fifteen years, if ever at all, and the complexion of the entire Park has evolved from an
original vision of predominantly industrial to a mix of professional offices, retail sales,
restaurants and hotels. The interest in developing these types of land uses in the Park
remains high.
In the larger picture, the growth pressure in the Ukiah Valley has changed in the past ten
years. There are currently large scale urban-type development projects proposed or
contemplated outside the City limits, including an approximate 700,000 square foot
commercial retail mall on the former Masonite property. This commercial project is
controversial because of its size and location. One perspective is that intensive retail
commercial development belongs in the City and efforts should be made to infill within the
City limits before permitting this type of development outside the City limits. The proposed
rezoning provides additional opportunity for this to occur.
2. Traffic: The Public Works Department required a Traffic Study to determine the
existing levels of traffic, the projected traffic resulting from the proposed rezoning, and
whether or not the existing traffic mitigation program was adequate to handle any increase in
traffic volumes. The Study revealed that the existing required and planned Traffic
Improvements for the Airport Business Park are adequate to handle the increase in traffic
resulting from the proposed rezoning except for the Commerce Drive and Airport Park
Boulevard intersection. This intersection will need a traffic signal to maintain the General Plan
minimum acceptable Level of Service "D" for commercial intersections
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On June 13, 2007, the City Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing and discussed the proposed re-designation of parcels within the
Airport Industrial Park. After discussing a number of issues, including possible future
amendments to the ordinance to allow more housing opportunities in the AIP, the Commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
proposed Ordinance amendment.
CONCLUSION: The owner of a number of parcels in the Airport Business Park is requesting
approval to rezone the property. The likely development that would follow in the future
would be retail commercial, restaurants, and similar uses. The proposed rezoning would
allow for the City to provide additional opportunity for retail commercial development to infill
within the City limits in an area that has evolved with these types of land uses. The traffic
impacts resulting from the proposal have been analyzed and additional traffic mitigation is
necessary, which will be required as future development occurs.
4
Attcschrr,ent #
of
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
DATE: May 16, 2007
APPLICANTS: Redwood Business Park (Gary Ackers(rom, Agent)
PROJECT NO.: Rezoning 06-46
LOCATION: 1285, 1295, and 1325 Airport Park Blvd., Ukiah, CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are proposing to rezoning 6 parcels from "IndustriallAUtomotive
Commercial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use" (8 acres), and 1 parcel from "Industrial" to "Light
Manufacturing/Mixed-Use' (6.5 acres).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is boated in the southern portion of the Airport Business
Park. The Mendocino Brewing Company bottling plant is located to the southwest and the retail shopping
portion of the ABP is situated to the north,
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: City Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study and analyzed of
whether or not the proposed rezoning would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. It was
concluded that while potentially significant adverse impacts could occur to traffc circulation, biotic
resources, geology and soils,hydrology, visual quality, land use energy use, and air quality, the mitigation
program contained in the 1995 certified Program Environmental Impact Report would successfully eliminate
or reduce the impacts to insignifcant and acceptable levels. The Program EIR is referenced and
incorporated herein.
FINDINGS SUPPORTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
1. 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;
2. Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, as mitigated
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 Initial Study, the project, as mitigated
will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and
4. Based upon the analysis, fndings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, as mitigated
will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of
Ukiah has determined that the project, as mitigated will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and further, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration constitutes rnmpliance with
the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This dgeGme/~`m~tyy review~A7~f the Ciry of Ukiah Planning Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
Mav 16 2007
Coordinator Date
CITY OF UKIAH
INITIAL STUDY
OF
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
1. Name of Project: Redwood Business Park (Gary Ackerstrom) Rezoning 06-46
2. Name of Project Proponent: Mr. Garv Ackerstrom, Agent
3. Address of Project Proponent: 425 Talmage Road, Ukiah CA 95482
4. Project Location: 1285, 1295, and 1325 Airport Park Blvd Ukiah CA 95482
5. Assessors Parcel Number(s): 180-080-58. 59, 64, 65 66 67' and 180-110-
6. Date of Initia/Study Preparation: April 27 2007
7. Name of Lead Agency: Citv of Ukiah
8. Address and Phone Number of Lead Agency: 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA
95482 / (707) 463-6207
9. Environmental Setting: The subject property consists of 9 parcels located in the
southern portion of the Airport Business (Industrial) Park. The Mendocino Brewing
Company is located to the south/southwest, and the Ken Fowler Automotive sales
facility is situated to the north. Highway 101 boarders the site to the east, and
Airport Park Boulevard runs north to south along the west side of the subject
parcels.
lO.Projed Description: The applicants are proposing to rezoning 6 parcels from
"Industrial/Automotive Commercial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use" (8 acres),
and 1 parcel from "Industrial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use" (6.5 acres). No
development or construction are proposed as a part of the project.
11.PIans, Exhibits, and other Submitted Application Materials: The Rezoning
application materials are available for review at the City of Ukiah Department of
Planning and Community Development - 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah.
12.Initial Study Prepared by: Ukiah Planning Department Staff
2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Potential Impacts: City Staff conducted an Initial Environmental Study and analyzed
of whether or not the proposed rezoning would have a significant adverse impact on the
environment. It was concluded that while potentially significant adverse impacts could
occur to Biotic Resources (Wildlife and Vegetation), Geology and Soils, Hydrology, Visual
Quality, and Air Quality, the mitigation program contained in the 1995 certifed Program
Environmental Impact Report would successfully eliminate or reduce the impacts to
insignificant and acceptable levels. The Program EIR is referenced and incorporated
herein.
Additionally, a revised Traffic Study was prepared under contract with the Ciry of Ukiah
Department of Public Works to determine what difference in traffic volumes would result
from the proposed rezoning and whether or not the existing traffic mitigation (Capital
Improvement Program) was adequate to accommodate any changes in traffc volumes.
The Traffic Study, prepared by Omni-Means Engineers/Planners, reached a number of
conclusions. First, the existing volumes of traffic in the Airport Business Park
approximately what was projected in the Program EIR and subsequent studies for the
level of current build-out. Second, the traffic resulting from the proposed rezoning on
the subject property would exceed the volumes expected under the previous zoning
designation. Finally, the existing traffc mitigation program (CIP) would not be adequate
to ensure acceptable Levels of Service at the Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive
intersection. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion reached in the W-Trans
Traffic Study for the 2004 rezoning of the 32-acres west of Airport Park Boulevard. Both
studies recommended a traffic signal at this intersection as a successful mitigation
measure. Additionally, some lane re-striping on Talmage Road is necessary.
No Potential Impacts Areas: Staff concluded that the proposed Rezoning of the
subject 14.5 acres would cause no potential adverse impacts related to Agricultural
Resources, Mineral Resources, Noise or Population and Housing. This conclusion is
based on the fact that no agricultural land exists on or adjacent to the site, no mineral
resources are located on or adjacent to the site, and the proposed change in zoning
classifcation would not increase the local population or reduce or eliminate any housing
stock.
Based on the conclusions reached in this Initial Environmental Study, it has been
determined that the proposed proiect, as mitioated, will not violate any of the
signifcance criteria, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for
the project.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this protect
and are discussed in this Initial Environmental Study:
,. ......,., ,~..,.,,.~ ~~ .,y~~~~~~~~a~ ropuiauon
' Re
sour[es
,_ _ _
X ~Biological
I Resources _
~ Cultural
_~ Resources X
J i Geology and
I Soils
'~, Hazards and ~
i Hazardous i
X "Hydrology and-
V/ater Quality
X ; ~__
Lan' d Use
I Matenals _ -
I Mineral ~ Noise
~ X Air Quality
Resources i
Public Services Recreation ~ X ' Traffic
I Utilities 'Housing x Energy Use ~I
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Environmental Evaluation:
On the basis of this Initial Study.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifcant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I fnd that although the proposed project could have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described within the Initial Study will be
incorporated into the design of the project or required by the City of Ukiah. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a signifcant adverse impact
ONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be
Charles Stumo May 16, 2007
Print Name Date
4
EXHIBIT °A"
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
LAND USE A^AP
\~
PROFESSIONAL OFFu
LIGHT MANllFAGNRING
MIXED-USE
.o, -- x. I G, a '~ -,..."",-~
.q ,. ~~ ~~I _ 4ir
~~~ ~~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ -~ ~.~. _~~-I, ~_~~ ~-- ~~-- -,
tl ~ o Q Q ~ / , i! Lbi
U ~ $
i p ~ ~ $
.. .I ~ ,
~~~-~,.
o / P / ~rJe
t ^°~am
~~ \
,~
9 ~'`
G ~ ~ Q 3\b)o
p .C ~ ~ p r
~ ~ _,
'~ Cq .~ ^ _ ~ r~crr
i o ~ ~ ~ ti --
y o /
j ~ b ~ ` o
,n ¢> y / y
rl 'c
~ ~ ~, ~~~ ~ ~o y~r ~ ~ ~ P
~i ~ i i~ arr 3
~ f
in . q
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
i~l ~ 4Ir
.a .~.
.. v^'i ' '. ~:l F
.era. '~~ ~ " ,I~" -ry
•'~x 40 ..
a +
4
O i
G
~ e ~ .~
~~ o.,
~~~
m `~
0
N
~ K,
b O ~
c ~
{ .~ pl
C
~ ~ U
a ~
v+ O c
N
Q
5
U
a
3n
Ed
0 0
~d
~c
3 5
~o
E n
c Z`
ti
A
W o
os;
q O { Fl~f~
~^h ~~I!!
~I
4~ a ., i
/p~~~r
1
"' ~ 1
c
qid
t~ ~~ 3 a%
ti lr1 / ~, t
l./ 1
C \it
:)
?~ ~ Ilblr OP~001
$.
x ,,.,.
,,., .
r roc oo
:''~ o
C", ~
C
N Q y
G
O
~` ~ n, ~ En ~) .. `~
j\~. _z .
O ~
:i
S
x~'
m`°
~ ~"io
=0y.
oZ~g [9'GIYI Li
o / fl'
~~ ~ • r
~~
~ ~~ ~ a,.
7 e >~''
2 w~
J
O
J
i~A
it G
~ N
m ~
o
„' a n
o n o
u
~~O
v o~
G' >. 6
c r
J~
O
a
M
S
-[.at/ i
//'s/
or a ar ,
e
„~z
8 s
~aR
N~~
y~ M
F
ome
v~m
~z~
v a
c~m
ma°
0
E o c
F~<
ti u
O
Z s
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Potentially
Significant
Impact.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: i
~a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a designat d
scenic vista?
~ b) Substantially damage natural resources, including,
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highways I
~_ --
c) Conflict with the architecture of the surrounding
built environment?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
with would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area? i
i~ II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the
Project:
~ In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land i
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977)
j prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as II
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
aorirulturP and farmlanri Wni ilri tha nrniart• I
Potentially `-- -~-~
Significant ~ '
I Unless ~ Less Than
Mitigation ii Signi£cant No
r Incorporated '~, Impact _ ~ Impact
I ./'
/ I,
j a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or II
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as ' ~
I
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
~
-~
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the I I
j California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
l I
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
~or a Williamson Act contract? i~
III A
IR
UALITY -
~
Q
Where available, the signifcant criteria established ' ' i 1
by the applicable air quality management or air
' I
pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
~
_
5
~b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality ~
~I violation? ~,
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ' I ' I
~ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region ~ i ' I
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or !I 'I /
state ambient air quality standard (including I
releasing emissions which exceed qualitative ! ~
thresholds for ozone precursors)? , ' I
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) ~reare oo~ecuonaoie oaors aneaing a suosianum i /
I number of people? i
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I
Would the project:
_~
a) 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 ~ I
,and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
'
I ~
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any
I ,
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
'
'
,
identified in local or regional plans, policies, I
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? j
I ' __
I
-
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
I i
i ~
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the i ~
'Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, I
~
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct '
~ I
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other ' I
means? -_-~ _
-._--
i--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 'i /~,
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
l
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? i i
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree j I /
preservation policy or ordinance? i ,
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ',
Conservation Plan, natural Community Conservation f
Plan, or the approved local, regional, or state habitat I
conservation plan?
6
!,~ V CULTURAL RESOURCES _---- ~ - -- ^ I --- __ _Y-- Ji
i
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the i~ I,
signifcance of a historical resource as defned in j ~ ./ '
~ Section 15064.5? I i I
--~
_
I b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the ' I /
signifcance of an archaeological resource pursuant 'I I
~
I
~I to Section 15064.5? ~ _
~ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ' I~ / 'i
l paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ~ ~ ~
feature? _ I~
-
~ ~
Disturb any human remains including those lip /
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS - Wou/d the project:
~
~ ~
a Ex ose eople or structures to potential
P P ~ / ~
'substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
j injury, or death involving: ~ _ _,~
~- i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ~
~
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
~ i
Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,
Geologist for the area, or based on the other I,
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
~
~
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4Z.
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking? / ~ _ ~I
_ II
~~ iii.) Seismic-related ground failure, including _
,/
'liquefaction? ~ _
- _ _'
~
-- T ~
l iv.) Landslides? I
__
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the foss of ~ /
; l
tOD5011? I
c Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentia4 result in on-site or off ~ /
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table / ~ I
18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating y
substantial risks to life or property?
~-
~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ~ ~~ /
disposal systems. Where sewers are not available for
~I the disposal of wastewater?
7
VII. 'HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
-Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the I,
I environment through the routine transport, use, or ',
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release of
/ '~
nazarwus rnacenais irno cne environmen[r
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
~ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste I j
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
j ~
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ~ I
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result ' ' /
would it create a signifcant hazard to the public or i
the environment? J I !~~
e) For a project located within an airport land use -- {
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, I i
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.
I f) Fora project within the vicinity of a private
!airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard ~
!
i for people residing or working in the projected area?
g) physically interfere with an adopted emergency ~ i
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
~ ~~
I~ ~
~ I
~ - - ~- ~
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, I
injury or death involving wildland fres, including '.
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas orb ~I
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -'
Would the project:
-
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste a
/
_discharge requirements? _ ~
I !
',
8
', b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ~
~ Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge i, ~ ~
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer ',
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table ! ~'
~' lever (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing ~, ii ~ ''~
i nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
j support existing land uses or planned uses for which ~~
permits have been granted)? i
--
9 9 / r-----7 _ _ __ .
Y 9 9 P ---- ----
c Substantiall alter the existin draina e attern of
the site or area includin throw h the alteration of '' I ! i
the course of a stream or river, m a manner which ~ ~
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site ~ ~ '~
or off-site?
- - -~ - i ~ I
d) 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-
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ' I
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
r---
~ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain as
~'I mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or '
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard f
'I delineation map?
~
rh) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area --- -
~
I structures which would impede or redirect flood f
~
Flowsv ~- ~ _ ___ ____
-
i) Expose people or structures to a signifcant risk of ' '
. loss, injury or death involving Flooding, including
!Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or a ! ', ~~'
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the i -~-~'
~ project: j
a) Physically divide an established community?
`_._ -
~ ~i
- -
9
I / i__._. __ _____
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan policy
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the ', I
project (including, but not limited to general plans, ; ' I
specifc plans, local coastal programs, or zoning ', `~
ordinances ado ted for the ur ose of avoidin or I
P P p 9
4 _ - -~__ - -
mitigating an environmental effect. !
-
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation I
plan or natural community conservation plan? ~ I
'
I -- ~-------~.__ _- ~
~-
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: !
I
- f--- ---- r---~
a) Result in the loss of availability of a know mineral ; I~
resource that would be of value to the region and ~ /
the residents of the state?
7
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated ~ /
on a local general plan, specifc plan or other land 'j
use plan?
~-
~-
XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: ! ~ ~ ~~
~~
F -- _.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local
~ general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable I ~~
standards of other agencies? ! '
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration groundborne noise
levels? !
---
-
-~--- --
~
f ~ I
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ' I / ',
existing without the project? I
I ~
_ ____
___ _ __
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in i
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? I
~
e) For a project located within an airport land use -
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, ' ~ i
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use /I
airport, would the project expose people residing or !.
working the project area to excessive noise levels?
{
I
g) 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 levels? I
I
I
I -_ ~ ---~
10
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the
project?
a) 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)? 1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
f
i housing elsewhere? j ~ I
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse --f
physical impacts associated with the provision of ~
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered governmental
j 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
-- _ _
1--
-
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ~
i require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect i /
I~ on the environment? i
1 I
',
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the --
project:
f
-
- -
-
a Cause an increase in traffc which is substantial in
~
irelation to the existin traffic load and ca a i
9 PctYof' i
~ 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
l intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county l
congestion management agency for designated f
f
li roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ' i
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks? I
11
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
i 1~
I
_
~g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs _ _
I ~~
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ~ ' ~/
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
~ ~
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - ~ ~ ~
Would the project: I
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ~.
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new ;
waste or wastewater treatment facilities or ~i ~
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause signifcant environmental effects? 'I ; it
c) 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. '~ ~
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources, ~, ! ~'
or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
---
-
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 ~ >f
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
l
i f) Be served by a landfll with sufficient permitted
' ~
il
capacity to accommodate the project
s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ~/ 'i
regulations related to solid waste? _ _ ~ 'I
12
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The 1995 Program Environmental Impact Report and Resolution 96-23
Review of the 1995 Program Environmental Impact Report revealed that the
environmental impacts associated with buildout of the Airport Business Park could be
mitigated with a comprehensive mitigation program. It included mitigation measures for
alt the identifed impacts including those to Biotic Resources (Wildlife and Vegetation),
Geology and Soils, Hydrology, Visual Quality, Land Use, Energy Use, and Air Quality.
On October 18, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution 96-23 certifying the Program
EIR for the buildout of the Airport Industrial Park. In doing so, it made specific Endings
for each identified impact and listed the mitigation measures adopted to successfully
offset the impacts. The Council also made specific findings and prepared a statement of
overriding considerations for some traffic impacts (extension of Airport Road to
Townsend and Norgard Lanes). Resolution 96-23 is attached to this Initial
Environmental Study and incorporated herein.
Staff analyzed the rezoning proposal to determine if the proposed zoning could result in
development that would cause different environmental effects than those identifed for
the current zoning in the Program EIR. For Biotic Resources (Wildlife and Vegetation),
Geology and Soils, Land Use, Energy Use, Visual Quality, Hydrology, Visual Quality, and
Air Quality, it was concluded that the 1995 Program EIR mitigation program would
adequately offset the impacts. This determination was based on the following:
1. The allowed building coverage for the proposed Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use
designation is the same as it is for the existing Industrial/Automotive Commercial
and Industrial designations.
2. The hydrology, geology and soils on the site have not changed.
3. The biological setting of the site has not changed.
4. The historic and cultural resource setting has not changed.
5. The proposed Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use designation contains architectural
and landscaping standards intended to produce attractive well designed
developments.
6. The landscaping standards contained in the Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use
designation are intended, in part, to result in energy conservation.
The mitigation program contained in the 1995 Certified Program EIR are incorporated
herein and included to the Initial Environmental Study as Attachment No. 1.
For traffic and circulation, additional analysis was necessary. The "worst" case
development scenario for the proposed zoning in terms of potential environmental
impacts would be full commercial retail buildout of the subject area. This could cause
different traffic/circulation and air quality impacts compared to those assumed and
analyzed for the Industrial/Automotive Commercial and Industrial designations in the
previously certifed Program EIR.
13
The following text addresses the pertinent environmental topics by discussing the
settings, signifcance criteria, potential impacts, recommended mitigation measures, the
impact signifcance after mitigation, and mitigation monitoring.
1. BIOTIC RESOURCES
A. Setting: The site includes aman-made drainage ditch and pond that have, over
time, evolved into biotic resources with habitat value. The pond area has been
mapped and is designated as wetlands. While the 1995 Program EIR identifed the
existing oak trees in the area as a significant biological resource, these trees are not
located on the subject property.
B. Significance Criteria: A significant impact to biological resources would occur if
implementation of the project would cause:
• 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 identifed 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;
• Conflict with any local policies/ordinances that protect biological resources
(e.g., tree preservation policy or ordinance);
C. Impacts: The program EIR identifed the potential loss of Oak trees on the subject
property as a potentially significant adverse impact. It also identifed the potential
loss on wetlands (filing of existing pond) as a potentially significant adverse impact.
Regardless of the zoning on the site, these potentially signifcant adverse impacts
remain with any future development.
D. Mitigation Measures: The Program EIR recommended requiring a tree protection
plan for projects involving filling, clearing, excavation, construction, or other site
development work, and that all Oak trees over 12 inches in diameter be preserved.
The measures also included a requirement that if any 12 inch or larger Oak trees had to
be removed, that three fifteen gallon size replacement Oak tress be replanted as part of
the development.
To mitigate the potential loss of wetlands, the mitigations measures included a
requirement that no filing of the pond/riparian area be allowed.
14
All Wildlife and Vegetation mitigation measures contained in the 1995 Program EIR are
incorporated herein by reference and included in Attachment No. 1 (Resolution 96-23).
E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce impacts to Oak Trees and wetlands to levels of insignificance.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A. Setting: The project site is blanketed by terrace deposits consisting of relatively
stiff, dense gravel, sand, silt, and clay. These terrace deposits are covered on the
surface by recent alluvial deposits.
B. Significance Criteria: A signifcant impact to geology and soils would occur if
implementation of the project would expose people or structures to major geologic
features that pose a substantial hazard to property and/or human life, or hazards
such as earthquake damage (rupture, groundshaking, ground failure, or landslides),
slope and/or foundation instability, 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 Certified Program EIR indicated that the Airport Business Park had
no significant geologic constraints to development. However, to ensure that future
building do not collapse or fail, it recommended requiring future development
projects to submit Soils and Geologic reports when applying for building permits.
Additionally, future developers will be required to obtain a General Construction
Activity Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board if not exempted by
that agency.
F. Mitigation Measures: All Geology mitigation measures contained in the 1995
Program EIR are incorporated herein by reference and included in Attachment No. 1
(Resolution 96-23).
G. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce impacts to Oak Trees and wetlands to levels of insignifcance.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
3. HYDROLOGY
A. Setting: The project site drains to the south and east under Highway 101 and
makes its way to the Russian River. The existing pond is fed from a spring on or
near the airport to the west, as well as from drainage running south along the east
side of Airport Road.
15
B. Significance Criteria: Signifcant impacts associated with hydrology and water
quality would result from a project if water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements were violated; groundwater and surface water quality and quantity
were substantially altered; drainage patterns were substantially altered that would
increase erosion/siltation and increase surface runoff; increase runoff that would
exceed capacity of existing or planned drainage systems or add a substantial source
of pollution; located on a 100-year floodplain; or expose people to hydrological
hazards such as flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
C. Impacts: The program EIR identified a number of impacts related to hydrology
including impacts on culverts, minor flooding, sediment transport, groundwater
recharge, and water quality.
H. Mitigation Measures: All hydrology mitigation measures contained in the 1995
Program EIR are incorporated herein by reference and included in Attachment No. 1
I. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce hydrology impacts to levels of insignificance.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
4. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
A. Bettina: The Airport Business Park has been building-out over the past fifteen
years, and traffic volumes in the area have increased accordingly. The Park is
developed with retail uses, general commercial, professional offces, lodging
facilities, industrial uses, and restaurants. Traffic at times is congested, particularly
on the weekends during peak hours.
B. Significance Criteria: According to the Ukiah General Plan Circulation Element,
the minimum acceptable level of service (LOS) on City commercial. residential
streets/intersections is LOS "D." Other criteria include whether the project would
have substantial effects upon air traffc 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: The program EIR identifed a number of potentially significant traffic
related impacts and recommended a detailed mitigation program. The City
subsequently adopted aCapita/ Improvement Program to implement the mitigation
measures that required future development to contribute funds towards the overall
cost.
The newly produced Omni-Means Traffc Study concluded that the project would
cause the Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive intersection to erode to a Level of
Service "E", which is unacceptable for commercial intersections according to the
General Plan. The Study recommended a traffic signal and crosswalks as a
reasonable mitigation measure.
16
D. Mitigation Measures: All future development projects on the subject properties
shall contribute their fair share of the cost for the traffc related mitigation measures
as stipulated in the City's Capita/ Improvement Program for the Airport Business
Park. Additionally, a traffic signal shall be required at the intersection of Airport Park
Boulevard and Commerce Drive as future development occurs. In addition, some re-
striping on Talmage Road is required and will be accomplished as part of the current
Talmage Road improvement project planned for the Summer of 2008.
E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce traffc related impacts to acceptable levels.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: The Traffic and Circulation mitigation measure will be
monitored by the Ukiah Planning and Public Works Departments according to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental
Study.
6. AIR QUALITY
A. Setting: 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, the actual pollutant
levels are relatively low due to the lack of upwind sources and the relatively low level
of development in the local air basin.
B. Significance Criteria: Air Quality Impacts would be significance if the project
results in any of the following:
• Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of any applicable Air Quality Plan;
• Violates any Federal, State or local air quality standard;
• Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
C. Imaacts: The program EIR identified both short-term and regional air quality
affects resulting from future development in the Airport Business Park.
D. Mitigation Measures: All Air Quality mitigation measures contained in the 1995
Program EIR are incorporated herein by reference and included in Attachment No. 1
Additionally, the Mendocino Air Quality Management District requires all grading
operations exceeding one acre in size to secure a permit from its office. Prior to the
issuance of a grading permit for future development projects, the project proponents
shall secure all required permits from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management
District.
E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce impacts to air quality to levels of insignificance.
17
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
]. VISUAL QUALITY
A. Setting: The project site lies adjacent to Highway 101 and the Ukiah Regional
Airport. The Airport Business Park is reaching 50% buildout with a combination of
retail, general commercial, lodging, visitor serving commercial, industrial, and
restaurants. The site can be seen from Highway 101, South State Street, and the
eastern end of Norgard Lane.
B. Significance Criteria: Visual Quality impacts would be signifcant if the project
resulted in the 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 generates new sources
of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area,
including that which would directly illuminate or reflect 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 program EIR identified a number of potentially significant visual
quality impacts resulting from the future development of the Airport Business Park.
D. Mitigation Measures: All Visual Quality mitigation measures contained in the
1995 Program EIR are incorporated herein by reference and included in Attachment
No. 1
E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce impacts to Visual Quality to levels of insignificance.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
8. ENERGY USE
A. Setting: Gas and electrical service is available to the subject property. Future
develop will seek hook-up to these energy sources.
B. Significance Criteria: According to the CEQA Guidelines a project would have a
significant energy impact if it would:
• Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy.
• Use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner.
18
C. Impacts: The program EIR found that energy sources are available to serve the
project site. However, it concluded that future development could consume large
amounts of energy, particularly if not designed to be energy effcient and include
capture passive solar design elements.
D. Mitigation Measures: The recommended mitigation measures included
compliance with Title 24 regulations and encouraging future development to attempt
to reduce heating and cooling costs with building orientation and landscaping.
E. Impact Significance After Mitigation: The mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate or reduce impacts to Energy Resources to levels of insignificance.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
10. LAND USE
A. Setting: The Airport Business Park have developed from an originally planned
industrial park into a commercial center with retail, offces, restaurants, industrial,
and visitor serving land uses.
B. Significance Criteria: Signifcant 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 1995 General Plan designates the Airport Business Park as a "Master
Plan Area." The Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for the Park implements
this designation. The applicants are proposing to amend the Ordinance by rezoning
a portion of the Park to potentially permit full retail commercial build-out where
industrial and automotive commercial are currently permitted. No General Plan
Amendment is necessary or required.
Both the current and proposed zoning classifcation permit industrial or light
manufacturing land uses, so that the opportunity for these uses would not change as
a result of the project. The change that would be created by the project would be
the potential for full retail commercial development to be permitted on the subject
property where it currently is not.
In terms of regional planning, the question is whether it makes sense to provide
additional opportunity for retail commercial development in the City as an infll
strategy when large urban style commercial development is proposed outside the
City limits. Carefully infilling the City with commercial development in areas such as
the Airport Business Park may make more sense than not providing the opportunity
and essentially encouraging retail commercial sprawl in the unincorporated area of
19
the Ukiah Valley.
Providing the opportunity must be balanced with environmental quality. The
growing traffic congestion in the Airport Business Park is of concern, and it is clear
from the recent Traffic Study that additional mitigation would be necessary to
maintain the General Plan street and intersection level of service standard "D"' for
the Commerce Drive/Airport Park Boulevard intersection if the subject property were
to buildout with retail development.
D. Mitigation Measures: The Traffic and Circulation mitigation measures will
maintain the project's consistency with the Ukiah General Plan.
E. Imoact Significance After Mitigation: Less than signifcant.
F. Mitigation Monitoring: All mitigation measures will be monitored by the Ukiah
Planning and Public Works Departments according to the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program included in this Initial Environmental Study.
20
RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY
1. City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995
2. The Linkage Between Land Use Transportation and Air Ouaiity, State Air
Resources Board, 1993.
3. T_he Land Use -Air Oualitv Linkage How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air
uali ,State Air Resources Board, 1997.
4. Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Mobile Source Emissions
An Indirect Source Research Proiect, State Air Resources Board, 1995.
5. A Source of Air uali Conditions Includin Emissions Invento Ozone
Formation PM10 Generation and Mitigation Measures for Mendocino County
CE1., Sonoma Technologies, Inc., November, 1998.
6. General Plan Revision and Growth Management Plan Technical Report: Natural
Habitat Section, Michael W. Skenfeld, October, 1991
7. Soil Survey of Mendocino County Eastern Part and Trinity County, Southwestern
Part. California, U.S. Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service,
January, 1991.
8. A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River, Steiner Environmental
Consulting, August, 1996.
9. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975).
10. Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996.
11. City Air Photographs: 1996, 2000, and 2001
13.Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffc Analysis Omni-Means Engineers and
Planners, May 2007
14.Airport Industrial Park Rezoning Traffic Analysis Whitlock & Weinberger
Transportation, Inc., September 2002.
15.Airport Industrial Park Subsequent EIR, prepared be Leonard Charles and Associates
- certified by the City of Ukiah October 18, 1995.
i6.Airport Business Park CIP Mitigation Monitoring Analysis. Omni-Means, June 2007
21
MITIGATION MONITORING
Assembly Bill 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 requires the
imposition of a number of important Mitigation Measures on future development projects.
The primary approach to mitigation contained in this document requires that the
mitigation measures contained in the previously certified AIP Subsequent EIR (Final -
July, 1995 / State Clearinghouse Number 90030999) be imposed on all future
development projects. City Staff have the responsibility to impose those mitigation
measures on projects that are approved. Each future development project will contain a
list of the required mitigation measures, who is responsible for ensuring implementation,
and who is responsible for monitoring.
The other primary mitigation measure contained in this document is for the City to
require that a Traffic Signal be installed at the Commerce Drive -Airport Park Boulevard
intersection. This can be accomplished by requiring a large development project to
install the signal if at the time of the future development proposal, a nexus can be
achieved between the impacts created by the proposal and the need to install the signal.
The required lane re-striping on Talmage Road is being designed as part of the Talmage
Road improvement project (CIP Program) and will be accomplished in the Summer of
2008.
Alternatively, the City could modify the Airport Industrial Park Capital Improvement
Program (Traffic Impact Fees) as necessary to include requiring a proportional share of
the future cost of the traffic signal.
City Staff have the responsibility to implement this mitigation measure subsequent to the
adoption of the Ordinance amending the AIP Planned Development Ordinance.
Planning and Public Works Staff have the responsibility to monitor the implementation of
the mitigation measure.
23
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Resolution 96-23
2z
RESOLUTION N0. 96- 23
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 AND
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEOA") GUIDELINES
SECTION 15091 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDED
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK (AIP) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS:
1. The Ciry of Ukiah, as Lead Agency, has prepared a Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR"), wnsisting of a Dratt Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, dated March, 1995
("DEIR"), antl a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, daletl July, 1995 ("FEIR"), for
the proposed Airport Intluslnal Park (AIP) Plannetl Development Ordnance Amentlments; and
2. The EIR has identified significant environmental impacts of the projects; antl
3. The City Council certified the EIR on August 16, 1995; and
4. The Ciry Council has chosen to etlopt an amentled Planned Development
Ordinance IOr the Airport Intlustnal Park; antl
5. Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEOA Guidelines Section 15091 Drovide
that Ne City shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which
identifies one Or more significant environmental impacts, unless it makes specified findings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the Ciry of UWah finds as
(OOWS:
1. The EIR was preparetl and matle avaitadle for public review antl comment in full
compliance with the procedures set forth in CEOA and the CEOA Guidelines.
2. The EIR was consideretl by both the Planning Commission antl City Council al
noticed public headngs on August 9, 1995 antl August 16, 1995, respectively, which were
contlucletl in lull compliance wRh all legal requirements.
3. Tne Giry Council has consitlered all tlocumenls submitletl for consideration prior
to or tludng the hearings it conducted antl all testimony presented tlurinq the heanngs as well as
the EIR, the Staff Repod, daletl August 4, 1995, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, and the Staff Report, dated August 11, 1995. The Staff Reports are incorporated
herein by reference. II has also intlepentlenlly reviewetl and consideretl This resolution.
4. The project is described in the EIR, including the DEIR on pages 7,8,9,10 antl 11
of the Redwood Business Park Component This description is incorporated herein Dy reference.
5. The EIR evaluatetl the impacts of the project, as well as its impact in combination
with impacts hom past, present, and probable lu(me projects, including impacts from the eventual
buildout and completion of the Airport Industha! Park Dotn as presently approvetl. Those impacts,
both individual and cumulative. along with recommended mitigation measures and suggestetl
conditions of approval, are summarized in Isis resolution.
6. Measures tlesignetl to avoitl or substantially lessen significant effects of future
deveVopment projects within the Airporl Induslnal Park will be imposed on protects as builtlout
occurs antl the significance Nresnolds itlentilied in the EIR are reached. In this way, full
mitigation will be achievetl as tleveloDmert occurs and is phased over time within the AIP.
7. Geology. The EIR geotechnical consultants detertninetl Nat there were no
significant geotechnical constraints on the site. Site soils may be subject to expansion and/or
some settlement. It will be necessary to upgrade soils or construct proper fountlations to ensure
the future builtlings are not tlamagetl by setllement. All necessary LII materials and activities
must be properly engineered to ensure the Tong-term integrity of lulure improvements.
Site grading and trenching will result in bared soils. The surlace soils antl poorly
consolitlated terrace soils will be prone to erosion. This is a potentially significant impact since
eroded soils can adversely aflecl water quality and ultimately the aquatic habitats of the Russan
River.
Geology Mitigations: The EIR recommends that all lulure individual projects be
regwred to nave complete geotechnical investigations, and that lulure developers secure General
Consimction Activity Pertni(s from the Regional Water Quality CoNrol Board.
Geology Finding: Mitigation measures are reasonable, feasible, and effective.
The Ciry lintls that implementation of IheSe mitigation measures will avoid or reduce to acceptable
levels Ina geological impacts resulting from the builtloul of the Airport 4nduslrial Park. These
measures will become contlitions of project approval and will be monitored by the Ciry
Engineering antl Planning Department stall during the gratling and building penni(process as well
as during the construction phases of all projects within the AIP.
B. Hydrology end Drainage. euildout of the AIP will increase the amount of
impervious surtaces on Ne site and, thus, increase the amount of runoff during the 70-year and
100-year storms. Increased flows Irom the site will have a minor impact on hooding east of the
freeway, and could Slightly increase the extent and tluration of Ilootling on the orchard to the east.
This orchartl impact, however, woultl not be causetl solely by the ste runoff; rather, it would
typically occur only in conjunction with some ovemank Ilootling of the Russian Rver.
Because builtlings must be conSWded so that their floors are at feast one loot above the
100-year hood elevation, it will be necessary to till lower Portions of the properly; Ina Retlwood
Business Park alreatlyhas aCiry-approvetl tlrainage plan that includes tilling of areas below hood
elevations. Filling has already occunetl in the northern portion of the site. AHer fill is placed on
low-lying portions of Ina property, Ilootling will be rest ncled Io tlrainage ditches and infrastructure.
Hydrology/Drainage Mitigations: Builtlout of the AIP untler the provisions of the
revised Planned Development Ordinance will not result in significant tlrainage related impacts.
However, mitigations measures are recommentletl to resolve the minor drainage issues discussed
above. These measures inUUde. requiring al{ buildings to be elevatetl above the 700-year flocd
elevation, requiring developers to prepare Sfortn Water Pollution Prevention Plans and obtain
General Construction Activity Pertnils from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and to
share in the lu ntlinq antl construction of ditch stabilization measures on the tlilch east o1 the 36-
inch culvert and on the ditch east of the twin 4-fool by 6-loot bbx culverts east of the Ireeway.
Hydrology/Drainage Fintlings: Tne Ciry linds the mitigation measures
reasonable, feasible, antl effective, except for sharing in the luntling and construction of ditch
stabilization measures on the ditch east of the 36-inch culvert and on the ditch east of the twin
a-toot Dy Efoct box culverts east of Me freeway. The Ciry linds that the recommended mitigation
measures conceminq ditch stablfization measures On privately-ownetl agricultural property ea51
of the Ireeway and outside the Ciry Limits are not the responsibility of the apphcanis and are not
feasible, since the applicant has no reasonable ability to enter u-on private land to put
improvements in place.
The Ciry lintls that implementation of the remaining mitigation measures as conditions of
project approval will avoitl or reduce to acceptable levels the Hydrology/drainage impacts resulting
Irom the buildout of the Airport Industrial Park. These measures will become conditions of
approval for all future development projects, and will be monitoretl by the Ciry Engineering
Department staff during me gmtling antl builtling permit process as well as during the constntction
phases of the project.
9. Biotic Environment: Builtlout of the AIP under the provisions of the revised
Planned Development Ordinance will eliminate open lieltls usetl for loraging by a number cl birds,
mammals, and reptiles. It will also basically remove all existing vegetation from the site. Given
the fact foal the property has been disked and used for agricultural purposes, antl roar
considerable lilt activities have occurred, the EIR concludes that no significant impacts will occur
to biotic environments, except for the passible removal of Valley Oak trees.
In terms of wetlands on the RBP, the property owner has entered into an agreement with
the Department of Fish and Game regartling the tlisposition of the wetland and small population
of Bakels Meadowloam that existed on the sale. The Department of Fsh and Game has
tletermined that this mitigation successfully oBesets the atlverse impacts on vegetation antl wildlile
that were itlenlified in the Wal-Man EIR.
To buildout the property containetl within the Airport Business Park (ABP) south of the
RBP, it may be necessary to fill wetlands. To avoid significant loss of wetands, and potential
impacts to biotic habitats, the EIR suggests a number of mitigation measures.
Biotic Mitigations: Suggested mitigation measures include preserving Oak trees,
and preclutlinq the filling cl the pontl/ripanan area on the Airport Business Park site. Adtlnionally,
pemmit approval Irom applicable State andior Federal agencies would be requiretl poor to hllmg
and wetland areas on the ABP Sile.
Biotic Environment Fintlings: The Ciry finds that all mitigations measures are
reasonable antl IeasiDle. The City tintls lusher that implementation of the mitigation measures
as con tlilions of project approval will avoid or retluce to acceptable levels the Biotic Environment
impacts resulting from the buildout of the Airport Industrial Park. These measures will become
contlitions of approval for all future development projecLS, and will be monitoretl by Gry
Engineering antl Planning Department stall during the grading and builtling permit process as well
as during the construction phases of the projects.
10. Air Oual{ry: The impact of a proposed action is judged to be signilicant based
upon criteria for significance. The legal criteria used for determining whether or not the intlirect
emissions generated by automobiles alt racletl to the AlP at 6uiltlout are the Stale antl Federal
Ambient Air Oualiry Standards. The air quality speciah5t who prepared an impact assessment
for the EIR concluded that State antl Federal air rjualiry standards would not be exceetled a5 a
result of 6uildoul of the AIP.
Air duality Mitigations: Although no signilicant air quality impacts would result
Irom buildout of the AIP, a number of mitigation measures are recommentled to avoid temporary
dust and particulate impacts tlunng gratling, and to tlecrease vehicle emissions associatetl with
the protect. These measures include the following.
a. All exposed or tlisiurbetl soil shall be regularly watered to avoid the transportation
of dust.
b. Every attempt shall be matle to keep all construction areaz swept and clear of mutl
antl debris.
c. Bicycle parking lacililies shall be installed at the project site prior to final Inspection
and the grant of occupancy.
tl. The applicants shall participate in a Transpodation Management Association when
it Is formed.
Air Quality Findings: For the reason stated above, as well a5 the technical
information contained in the EIR, the protect will not have a signilicant adverse effect on any State
or Federal air qualify standard, and is, therefore, presumetl under CWA Guideline 15064(1) to
have no significant adverse impact on air quality.
However, the Ciry Council hods that futwe development projects will conlriDute to
the cumulative formation of ozone antl shod-term paniculale matter In the Ukiah Valley. While
the Ciry Council tintls further that this cumulative contribution o1 Doth ozone and paNCUlate matter
is speculative and cannot feasibly be quantihetl with any degree of accuracy, measures should
be taken to omit and reduce the amount of these air pollutants resulting from the projects.
Therefore, the City Council tintls that the recommentletl mitigation measures designed to avoid
or lessen tlust and paniculale matter, as well as vehicle emissions are reasonable and feasible.
The Ciry tintls that measures will be effective in avoiding or retlucing impacts to an acceptable
level when they become conditions of protect approval. They wJl be monitored Dy City
Engineering antl Planning Department stat4 tlunng the gratling and building permit process as well
as during the conswclion phases of all future projecLS.
11. Vieusl Ouelity: The Airport Industrial Park a siluatetl in a highly visible location
atljacent to State Highway 101. The AIP is also highly visible from Talmage Road, the residences
along the western hills of the City, and a law other locations in the southem poNOn of the Ciry.
Buildout of the AIP will completely change the views of the site. 6cisting views of vacant fields,
Oak trees, a pear orchard, and a vineyartl could be replaced by views of a collection of
commercial, industrial and office buildings. streets, signs antl parking lots. Night-erne views will
also be altered with new views of lights and lighted signs. However, retention of the pond and
riparian area within the southem portion of the AIP, as well as landscaping along the Highway
101 frontage. will provide a visual Duller a{onq Highway 101, and will breakup the massing of
future buildings. The EIR concludes that the potential impacts to existing views and the visual
quality of the area are subjective, and That the Ciry must decitle if they are significant.
Visual ~uelity Mitigations: Tne EIR recommends extending the pondrripanan
complex on the Airport Business Park into the Retlwootl Business Park to create a natural
landscape corridor that will soften the visual effects of building out the AIP. It also recommends
requiring shielded, non-glare NDes of lighting, the creation of a landscape zone along the Ireeway,
a design review/process for the AIP, restrictive sign stantlartls, the retention of Oak trees, and
the retention of existing landscaping.
Visual Quality Findings: Impacts to viewsheds and visual quality are highly
subjective and diNiwlt to quantify, While no health risks are involved, significant atlverse ~mpacis
to visual quality can erode the local quality of life. The Ciry Council finds roar the buildout of the
Airport Industrial Park coultl have potentially significant aWerse impacts on the visual quality of
the project Bile. The Ciry Council finds further that the suggested mitigation measures contained
in the EIR are reasonable and feasible, and will adepuately soften potential visual impacts to an
acceptable level, except for extending the ponrllriparian complex on the Airport Busi ness Park into
the Retlwootl Business Park, because there is no guaranteed long-term source of water to fill and
nourish the extendetl pond. The adoptetl mitigation measures will become conditions of approval
for future tlevelopment projects, and will be monitoretl by Ciry Planning Stall tlunng the building
pennil process as well as during the construction phases of the projects.
12. Noise: AIP buildout traffic will increase noise levels on existing streets north of
the site by one tlecibel or less. This amount is consideretl imperceptible and is not a significant
impact. Shon4erm conswction noise. while not consitlered signilicanL ceultl be disruptive to the
resitlenUal area north of the AIP.
The construction of the required Southern access road when the AIP reaches 50-percent
buildout, will result in significant noise impacts to the NorgaN Lane/TOwnsend Lane
neighborhood. Even after mitigation, the EIR conUUdes Inat the impacts will remain significant.
Noise Mitigations: The EIR recommends mitigation measures limiting
construction times and regmnng heavy construction equipment to be properly muffled and
maintained Adtliiionally, it is recommendetl that the final route for the southem extension avOitl
altogether or as much of the Norgard Lanelfownsentl Lane residential neighborhootl as possible.
To further reduce impacts to This neighbomooQ it is recommendetl that the CiN initially predutle
Imck hallic. or insulate existing residential um6 to mitigate noise impacts. However, even wish
These mitigation measures, ii i5 concluded that noise impacts will emam significant.
It is possible that the City may [hoose to purchase and annex the residential prope Hies
in ihrf neighbomootl, antl provide opportunity for retlevelopment of the properties into airport
relatetl intlustnal uses. II this were to occur poor to the AIP reaching 50 percent Dwldout, the
impact would become moot, because no residental properties would remain.
Noise Findings: The Ciry finds Nat all mibgauon measures are reasonable and
feasible. The City lintl5 further ~~alimplementation of measures/contlitions to restrict consW COOn
Hours, requiring equipment to be muHletl antl maintained, and the tlesign of a southern access
route avoiding the residential neighborhoods along Townsentl Land antl Norgartl Lane will avoid
or reduce noise impacts to an acceptable levels. The adopted mitigation meazures will become
contlil~ons of approval for future development projects, and will fie monitored by City Engineering
and Planning Department stall tlunng the building permit process as well as during the
consWdion phases of the project.
II lutwe impacts should arise that have not been fully mitigated by these measures, which
is highly speculative at this lime, the Cily Council Nrther tintls that any such sigmlicanl aWerse
noise, 12Hic and salery impacts are ovemdden for the following reasons:
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic resulting from the extension of Airport Roatl to Townsend Lane and Norgartl Lane
will result in increased truck antl automobile volumes, and noise. II mitigation measures prove
Ineffective or impractical, i1 a final route does not avoitl Townsend Land and Norgard Lane
altogether, or if the Ciry does not annex, purchase and redevelop the area Irom residential to
intlustnal uses in the future, the City would accept these impacts because of the long-term
economic, social, and health and salery benefits to the Ciry.
The City finds that the sigmlicanl noise and safety impacts resulting from the extensidn
of Airport Road to Townsend tanelNOrgard lane are overridden by the following social and
economic benefits Of the builtloul of the Airport Industrial Park:
a. The tong-Term economic benefit to Hie City oS Ukiah and the ability of the City to
increase the job base and obtain a higher level of retail sales and property taxes outweighs the
concerns regarding noise antl neighborhood impacts. Builtloul of the AIP will result in 1,332,000
square feet of industrial, office antl commercial stmctwes that will provitle hundreds of moderate
fe high paying jobs to Ukiah citizens, represenfing a major expansion of the Ukiah economy.
UnemploymeN in Ukiah is higher than the State average. Additional employment and expansion
of the Ukiah economy will result in improved living [ontliuons for Ukiah residents antl retluced
government costs for welfare benefits, unemployment insurance, and social sernces
b. The bu ildou[ of the AIP will substantially inuease the assessed value of the project
sle, which will in lum increase the property lax revenue of the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency
(RDA). This atlditional tax revenue to the RDA will assist m Tne implementation of the
retlevelopmeni plan, including the development oI low and moderate income housing.
c. Buildout of the AIP will generate substantial amounts a1 sales lax to the Clry. !n
addition, Lhe Ciry will receive substantial funtls per year in atltlitional fees far water, sewer and
electncal services provitled to the project and in business license fees. These adtliUOnal
revenues will De available Io meet the needs of general City government at a time when the City
an6apates significant cuts in State funtling.
tl. The extension of Airport Road and construction of a southem road connection to
South State Street will improve area-wide IraHic circulation, reduce emergency vehicle response
times, antl provide an important atltlitional evacuation route from the AIP area. It will also reduce
traNic related impacts to Otner areas o1 the community, pa rticulady those north of the site such
as on Talmage Road and its key intersecLOns.
13. Police and Fire Service: Both the Ukiah Police Department and Ukiah Fire
Department believe that they can etleclively serve IDe builtlout of the AIP. However, me EIR
concludes that while revenue will be generated as a result of sales and property taxes collected
on new development within the PaM That could help iuntl expanded service, the municipal
revenues may not be enough to maintain current levels of service. Atlditionally, for emergency
vehicle access and circulation, as well as site evacuation, the EIR recommentls construction of
Ine southem access road when the AIP reaches fifty percent buildout.
Police end Fire Service Mitigations: Recommended mitigation measures include
compliance with standartl building and lire codes, construction of the southem access road at lifN
percent buildout of the AIP, and consideration of a lire and emergency protection mitigation lee
for all new tlevelopment.
Police and Fire Service Findings: The Ciry finds that all mitigation measwes are
reasonable antl feasible, except for establishing a lire and emergency protection mitigation lee
for all new development The Ciry Council iintls further that such a fee program is not necessary
because the anticipatetl sales antl property tax generated from new tlevelopment within the AIP
will substantially assist in the long4erm funtling of new equipment antl personnel The City
Council finds further That the remaining mitigation measures imposed as contlitions of project
approvals, will avoid or reduce to acceptable levels impacts on CiN Police and Fire Services. The
adopted mitigation measures will become conditions of approval for future tlevelopment projects,
and will be monitored by City Planning and fire Depadment Staff dunng the building permit
process as well as during the construction phases o1 the projects.
14. Sewage Treatment and Disposal: Buildout of the AIP is expected to generate
approximately 70,000 gallons per tlay (gptl) of wastewater. This figure could increase it the
Mendocino Brewing Company facility is expanded in the future. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation
Dfslnct (UVSD) has mdicaled d has the capacity to serve buildout of the AIP.
Atltlitionally, a major trunk collector line crosses the eaStem part of the AIP. This trunk
tine has amble capacity to transport wastewater genemted on the Bile.
While the builtlout of the AIP will not have a significant atlverse impact on the capacity or
operations of the UVSD facilities, the prolecl's increment of the potentially significant cumulative
impacts on the UVSD's collection, treatment antl disposal tacitities should be minim¢ed.
Sewer Mitigations: To minimize potential cumulative impacts, the EIR
recommends requiring all tuture tlevelopmenl Io install water gonSefVation devices, that all
sewage collectors for ilia AIP be tle5igned according t0 atloptetl codes, and that all development
pay aDDropriafe connection tees at the time apptica6on is made.
Sewer Treatment and Disposal Findings: The City finds that all mnigation
measures when imposed as conditions of approval are reasonable antl feasible, and will be
effective in avoiding or reducing impacts to an acceptable level. The atloptetl mitigation
measures will become conditions of approval for tuture development projects, and will De
monitoretl by City Planning antl Utility Department staff during the building pe nnil process as well
as during the construction phases of the project.
16. Water: Basetl on the average intlustnal and commercial water tlemantl, buildoul
of the AIP will require approximately 158.000 gallons per tlay of water. This equates to a peak
summer demand of approximately 253,000 gallons per day. The CiN has the capacity to meet
tnis increased tlemantl which is the equivalent of about 6.8 percent of the current pumping
capacity. According to the City Water and Sewer Operations Supenntentlenl, in a memo tlated
July 12, t 995 in response to issues raised in the FEIR, the Giry has a secure water ngM well into
the tuture, and has a very reliable water supply system.
Water Mitigations: Wnile the builtlout of the AIP will not have significant impacts
on the City's ability to provide water, a number of mitigation measures are recomm¢nded to
minimize the amount of water used for the project These measures include the inslallalion of
water conservation tlevices, and the use of drought tolerant lantlscaping species and low water
tlemantl irtigation tlevices.
Water Service Findings: The CiN Inds that all mitigation measures when
imposed as conditions of approval are reasanable and feasible to avoid or retluce impacts to an
acceptable level. The atloptetl mitigation measures will become conditions of approval for tuture
development projects and will be monitored by City Planning and Utility Department staff during
the building permit process as well as during the consvuction phases of the project.
16. Schools: Builtlou! of the AIP will generate new householtl5 antl, consequently,
new students. The precise number of students depends on Ne types of businesses tnat will
ultimately occupy the site. Using the stutlent generation factors maintained by the Ukiah Unilietl
School District (UUSD), builtlout of the AIP could generate as many as 431 new households in
the Distract and an atlditional 302 students- Based on a 10-year phased builtlout of the park, it
is assumed that the student generation woultl total approximately 30 new students per year.
While the cuttent atloptetl developer mitigabon lee of 5.26 per square fool of builtling may not
sufficiently offset the impact of this many new slutlen(s on the capacity of the UUSD, the district
has indicated that it only 'intends to collect this amount
School Mitigations: No miligation5 required.
School Findings: Basetl on the information conlainetl m the Final EIR. the Ciry
finds Thal project wit! not have a significant adverse 1mpaG on the Ukiah Unilietl School District.
17. Land Use: Builtloul of the AIP will result in the loss or displacement of a small
Dear orchard on Ina soulhem poRion Of the site, but this is not deemed significant since the City
has committed this property to intlustrial type development antl has zoned it accordingly
Additionally, the EIR condutles lhaf there will not be a [onllid with the Municipal AirpoR to the
west of the site, and That the mitigation measwes contained in other impact categories will
successNlly oft-set potential conflicts and impacts to land use.
While development of the site woultl potentially conflict with goals and polities aimed at
preserving agricultural land, the Gity has in IDe past determined Thal intlustrial use of the slle was
more valuable than potential agricultural uses. The projects are consistent with the General Plan
land use designation for the site, as amplified by the AIP PD Ordmartce, and this designation was
apDlietl to be consistent with other Plan goals antl policies.
The EIR indicates that the ezlension of AiryoR Road to Townsend Lane/Norgard Lane
(southern access road) will substantially alter the neighborhood character along These streets.
Statement of ovemdng cOnsideraGOns have been made regartling thane impacts in Section 13
(Noise) above.
Land Use Mitigations: No mitigations repuired.
Land Use Fintlings: Based on the analysis and inlonnation containetl in the EIR
and this Resolution, the City Council finds that the Drojects will not have significant adverse
impacts on lend use.
16. TraNic end Cireuletlon: Based upon reasonable traffic assumptions antl the
proposed buiVdout projections and assumptions contained in Ne EIR, the registered professional
traffic consultant determined th al the total trip generation for the Redwood Business Park (RBP)
woultl be 22,490 two-way trips with 965 inbound and 1,220 oulbountl vehicle tops tluring the PM
peak traffic Hour. Builtloul of the AirpoR Business Park (ABP) to the south woultl result in 1,530
iwo-way lops with 45 inbound and 160 outbountl vehicle trips tludng the PM peak traffic hour.
Accortlingly, builtlout of the AIP will result in 24,020 daily two-way Trips with 1010 inbound and
1,380 outbound during the Evening Peak Traffic hour (4:30 - &30 PM). This amount of traffic will
result in a tlegretlation of levels of service (LOS) at a number of nearby key intersections.
Atltlilionally, there woultl be a number of roadway impacts and correspontling salary concerns.
Based upon an assumetl distribution pattern, the following impacts to intersecpons would
result from Builtloul of me AIP:
t. Operation of the signalized South State SlreeVialmage Road intersection would
deteriorate from LOS C!D to LOS D during the peak hour.
2, The signalizetl Talmage RoarUAiryort Park Boulevartl intersection would
deteriorate Irom LOS A to an Unacceptable LOS E tludng the PM peak hour.
3. Both the Talmage Roatl unsignalized intersections with State Route 101 off-ramps
would have Turning movements operating unacceptably aI LOS D
q. The South State StreeVHastings Avenue-Washington Avenue signalzed
iNersection operation would deteriorate from LOS B to an unacceptable LOS E.
The Airport Park BoulevardrCommerce Drive unsignalized intersection woultl have
stop sign controlled fuming and through movements Irom Commerce Drive
operating unacceptably at LOS F.
The FEIR. on pp. 94-108, IISLS a number of roatlway impacts and safety concerns, as well
as cumulative traffic impacts.
Additionally, the EIR intlicates that the extension of Airport Road to Townsend
Lane'NOrgard Lane (southern access road) will result in Iraflic safey impacts along these slreeL.
A Statement of ovenitling consitleraticns have been made regarding these impacts in Section 13
(Nose) above.
TraNlc end Circulation Mitigations: Mitigation measures are recommended on
p0. B8-i De in the FEIR to eliminate or reduce me impacts to levels of insignificance. Tnese
mitigation measures would be implemented when threshold levels are met or exceetled. It is
anticipated that necessary intesecion and roadway improvements will be accomplished as the
AIP develops and traffic volumes meet the threshold limits. It should be noted mat it the
anticipated traffic volumes are not generated as a result of the phased builtlouf of the AfP, certain
mitigation measures would not be warranted. Additionally, the City Engineer lies disagreetl with
mitigation measure No. 9 on page 100 0l the FEIR, and based upon his analysis, contained in
the atlmini5lrative record, the City tldes not support th¢ conclusions leading to this mitigation
measure:
Mitigation No. 9 (in pan) on page 100 0l the FEIR: the construction of separate
deceleration lanes on the approaches to all major driveways.
Additionally, n should be noted That Table 5 contained on page 107 0l the FEIR lists the
percent o1 PM peak hourtrattic at slutly intersections that is generated by the Redwood Business
Park. This table will be used to determine percent responsibility requirements for the Redwootl
Business Park, the City of Ukiah, and other propedy ownerstdevefopers within the Airport
Intlustnal Park.
TraNic and Circulation Findings: Basetl on the independent third-paM traNic
study prepared by a regisleretl prolessional IraNic engineer, the Ciry Council finds that all
recommended mitigation measures, except as intlicated above are reasonable and IeasiDle. The
Gity finds further that as the Airport Industrial Park builds out, entl impact thresholds are met, the
recommended mitigation measures will De implemented, and traffic antl circulation impacts will
be avoided or reducetl to acceptable levels. The adopted mitigation measures will become
contli6ons of project approval as the AIP builds out, and will be monitored by Ciry Engineering
and Planning Department s1aN dudng the entitlement process as well as during the construction
phases of future Drojecls within the AIP.
The Ciry Council linds lunher Ihat intlividual Drojecls within the AirDOn Intlusinal
Park Will contribute to the cumulative impacts to the levels of service of on and oN-site
intersections and roads. The City Council shall establish off-site capital improvement fees for the
Artport Industrial Park pursuant to Ukiah Ciry Cotle Section 9543 that will require all luture
development in the Dark to conlrioute proportionately to the cost of implementing mitigation
measures i1 impact thresholds requiring those mitigation measures are met. The Ciry Council
linds 4hat this mitigation will reduce or avoid cumulative traffic impacts to acceptable levels.
19. Pro)ect Alternatives: After thoroughly considering project allemalives, in cluding
the no~project alternative, and for Ne reasons stated in the staff report, tlated July 2B, 1995, The
Ciry Council linds that none of the alternatives are feasible or will have fewer or less severe
adverse environmental impacts than the Droposed project(s) site. Moreover, the City can more
etteclively mitigate the potential adverse impacts at the proposed slle than any other locations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED Ihis 18th tlay of October, 7995 by the lollowing roll call vote.
AYES. MasUn, Malone. Wattenburger, Shoemaker, Mayor Schneiler
NOES None
ABSENT: None
f
Fred Schnetler, Mayor
ATT/F~$j T
/ / i 6/~~
ath Mc ay, City 1 rk
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
AMENDING THE AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows:
Section One
The purpose of this amendment to the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) Planned
Development Ordinance is to change the Land Use Designation on approximately 8 acres
currently designated Industrial/Automotive Commercial to Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use,
and to change the Land Use Designation on approximately 6.5 acres currently designated
Industrial to Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use.
Section Two
The overall purpose of the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development is to provide
for a coordinated development of compatible industrial, office, and commercial land uses. It details
both allowed and permitted uses within each land use category, regulate nuisances, and provide
development standards and design guidelines. The AIP Planned Development is consistent with
the "Master Plan" land use designation for the property contained in the Ukiah General Plan.
Section Three
This ordinance also formally amends the Land Use Map that illustrates which land use
designations are assigned to the various properties throughout the Airport Industrial Park. The
The map shows the approximate 14.5 acres east of Airport Park Boulevard in the southern
portion of the Park being redesignated from "Industrial/Automotive Commercial" and
"Industrial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use."
The land use designations apply to the 138-acre Airport Industrial Park in the following manner:
1. Professional Office: Applies to the northwest portion of the site, bounded by
Talmage Road on the north, Airport Park Boulevard on the east, and Commerce
Drive on the south (approximately 12.6 acres).
2. Highway Commercial: Applies only to the northeastern portion of the site, bounded
by Talmage Road to the north, Airport Park Boulevard to the west, Highway 101 to
the east, and the existing large commercial retail store property
to the south (approximately 1.4 acres).
3. Retail Commercial: Applies to 13.44 acres north of Commerce Drive, and
approximately 23.41 acres south of Commerce Drive, bounded by Airport Park
Boulevard on the west, and Highway 101 on the east. (approximately 37 acres).
4. Industrial: Applies to the property situated at the southern end of the Airport
Industrial Park (approximately 24:8 18.3 acres).
5. Industrial/Automotive Commercial: Applies to the ~~~,: ^ ;.c::ic^ c!~
. 8
acres east of Airport Park Boulevard south of the Retail Commercial
Designated lands. These 8 acres include APN 780-080-56,57,64,65,66 and 67.
6. Licaht Manufacturina/Mixed-Use: Applies to the lands west of Airport Park
Boulevard south of Commerce Drive. Includes the (2) acres adjacent to and north of
the existing Mendocino Brewing Company parcel, and the approximate one (1) acre
2
west of and adjacent to the existing pond. It also includes the approximate 8
acres east of Airport Park Boulevard south of the Industrial Automotive
Commercial designated lands (approximately 32 48.5 acres).
7. Roads and landscaping: Approximately 14.2 acres.
8. Total Acreage AIP: Approximately 138 acres.
Section Four
The Airport Industrial Park Planned Development was originally approved by City Council
Resolution No. 81-59 on March 3, 1981, embodied in Use Permit No. 81-39. Itwas amended and
further articulated in 1991 when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-4. In 1993, the City
Council adopted a revised Ordinance (929) to allow "General Commercial" in addition to the
approved "Highway Oriented Commercial" land uses in the area bounded by Talmage Road on the
north, Highway 101 on the east, Commerce Drive on the south, and Airport Park Boulevard on the
west. This Ordinance also Acreated- the Planned Development Ordinance out of what was
previously a Use Permit. On May 1, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance 963, which
amended the AIP Planned Development to make it a more organized and useable set of
regulations. On June 19, 1997, the Planned Development was amended again by the adoption of
Ordinance 964, which created an Industrial/Automotive Commercial Land Use Designation for the
16 acres directly south of the home improvement center/hardware store facility east of Airport Park
Boulevard. On April 2, 1997, the Planned Development Ordinance was amended by the adoption
of Ordinance 991, which permitted drive-thru restaurants on the lands designated as Highway
Commercial. On November 3, 1999, the Ordinance was amended to designate the 32 acres south
of Hastings Avenue and west of Airport Park Boulevard as Industrial Mixed-Use. On September 6,
2000, the Ordinance was revised to list hotels and sit-down restaurants as "allowed" uses in the
Professional Office Land Use Designation. On January 7, 2004, the Ordinance was amended to
change the "Industrial Mixed Use" designation to "Light Manufacturing Mixed Use," and to
3
establish new standards for commercial, professional office, light manufacturing, and low
density residential land uses in the Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use area that are separate
from those contained in Section "G" of this Ordinance.
Section Five
Airport Industrial Park Planned Development, as amended herein, provides a mixture of
industrial, commercial, low density residential, and office land uses within a Planned Development
(PD), consistent with the City of Ukiah General Plan Master Plan land use designation.
Section Six
The Development Map (Generalized Land Use Map) for this Planned Development, as well
as the design guidelines and development standards constitute the Concept Development Plan, as
required by Article 14, Chapter 2 (Zoning) of the Ukiah Municipal Code. The Development Map
(Generalized Land Use Map) attached as Exhibit "A", is approved. The Traffic Circulation Plan for
this Planned Development is discussed in Section "I" on page 24, and the Circulation Map, attached
as Exhibit "B", is approved.
Section Seven
Development standards not addressed in the Planned Development regulations shall be
those specified in the City of Ukiah Zoning Code.
Section Eipht
Amendment to this ordinance requires City Council action. All Major Variance, Use and Site
Development Permits for proposed developments within the Airport Industrial Park require City
Planning Commission review and action. Minor permits are subject to the review and action by the
City Zoning Administrator. Decisions on Major and Minor Variance, Site Development and Use
Permits made by the City Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator areappealable to the City
Council pursuant to section 9266 of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
4
Section Nine
Some small commercial land uses maybe permitted on the Industrial designated land if they
are primarily intended to provide commercial type services to employees within the Airport
Industrial Park.
Section Ten
This version of the Airport Industrial Park (AIP) Planned Development supersedes all past
versions, and shall govern and regulate the growth and development within the AIP.
Section Eleven
The regulations forthis Planned Development, as required in Article 14, Chapter2 (Zoning),
of the Ukiah Municipal Code are as follows:
A. INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION
1. Allowed Uses
The following industrial uses are allowed in the Industrial designation with the
securing of a Site Development Permit.
a. Manufacturing -activities or operations involving the processing,
assembling, blending, packaging, compounding, or fabrication of
previously prepared materials or substances into new products.
b. Warehouse and Distribution Activities -includes warehousing, and
storage not available to the general public; warehousing and
distribution activities associated with manufacturing, wholesaling,
or non-retail business uses; delivery and transfer services; freight
forwarding; moving and storage; distribution terminals for the
assembly and breakdown of freight; or other similar use involving
shipping, warehousing, and distribution activities.
c. Wholesaling and Related Uses -includes establishments engaged
5
in wholesale trade or warehousing activities including maintaining
inventories of goods; assembling, sorting, and grading goods into
large lots; breaking bulk and redistribution in smaller lots; selling
merchandise to retailers, industrial, commercial, institutional, or
business users, or other wholesalers.
d. Contractor's Offices -includes business office for building, plumbing,
electrical, roofing, heating, air conditioning, and painting contractors
including storage of incidental equipment and supplies.
e. Agricultural -allowed as a continuation of the existing land use,
including all necessary structures and appurtenances.
f. Research and Development Laboratories, and computer and data
processing.
g. Accessory Uses and Structures -activities such as administrative
offices and warehouses which are related and ancillaryto an allowed
use. Ancillary structures containing ancillary uses shall be located on
the same parcel as the primary use/structure, and shall not exceed
25% of the gross floor area of structure(s) containing the primary use.
2. Permitted Uses
The following small commercial, business support, and repair service land uses
maybe permitted in the Industrial land use designation with the securing of a Use
Permit, provided they are situated on a parcel no larger than one-half acre in size,
and do not exceed 20 percent of the total land dedicated to the Industrial Land Use
Designation:
a. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no drive-
thru restaurants shall be permitted).
b. Small grocery or convenience store.
c. Banking facility.
d. Child day-care facility.
e. Industrial and business support services -establishments primarily
engaged in providing services to business and industry, such as
blueprinting and photocopying, janitorial and building maintenance,
equipment rental and leasing, medical labs, commercial testing
laboratories and answering services.
f. Public Facilities -includes all public and quasi-public facilities such
as utility substations, post offices, fire stations, and government
offices.
g. Repair Services -includes repair services such as radio and
television, furniture, automotive repair, body and fender shops.
h. Communication Installations -includes radio and television stations,
telegraph and telephone offices, cable T.V., and microwave stations.
B. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DESIGNATION
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Professional Office Land Use Designation is to provide
opportunity for a variety of business and professional offices, as well as a limited
number of highway commercial land uses. Land uses such as child care facilities,
delicatessens, and small retail stores and shops are intended to be ancillary
components to professional office development projects, and the limited highway
commercial land uses.
7
2. General Requirements
a. Child care facilities, delicatessens, and small commercial retail stores
and shops shall not exceed 20 percent of the total developable
square footage of any one parcel. The resulting square footage that
comprises this 20 percent shall only be developed with individual
store/shop spaces that do not exceed 2,000 square feet in size.
3. Allowed Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Professional Office designation with the
securing of a Site Development Permit:
a. Professional and business offices such as accountants, engineers,
architects, landscape architects, surveyors, attorneys, advertising,
consultants, bookkeeping, medical and dental offices, and other
similar activities.
b. Business and office support services -includes services such as
branch banks, savings and loan, credit unions, insurance brokers,
real estate sales, blueprinting and photocopying and answering
services.
c. Child day-care facility.
d. Retail commercial in the built-out northwest portion of this area
outside the boundaries of the Redwood Business Park.
e. Hotels and sit-down restaurants (no drive-thru restaurants).
4. Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the Professional Office Designation with the
securing of a Use Permit:
a. Delicatessen and sandwich shop.
8
b. Small grocery or convenience store.
c. Small retail commercial stores and shops of 2,000 square feet or
less, and in combination not exceeding 20 percent of the total
developable square footage on a parcel
C. HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION
1. Allowed Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Highway Commercial designation
with the securing of a Site Development Permit:
a. Businesses such as motels, sit-down and drive-thru restaurants,
service stations, and other similar uses that provide services and
merchandise primarily to highway travelers.
b. Retail commercial stores.
D. RETAIL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION
1. Allowed Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Retail Commercial designation with the
securing of a Site Development Permit:
a. Retail commercial stores.
b. Child day-care facility.
c. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, and ice cream parlor.
2. Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the Retail Commercial designation with the
securing of a Use Permit:
a. Restaurants (no drive-thru restaurants).
b. Small grocery or convenience store.
c. Banking facility.
9
E. INDUSTRIAUAUTOMOTIVE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION
1. Allowed Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Industrial/Automotive Commercial Land Use
Designation with the securing of a Site Development Permit:
a. Alf the allowed industrial uses listed in Item A (1) above.
b. Automobile dealerships, except for those that exclusively sell used
vehicles.
2. Permitted Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Industrial/Automotive Commercial Land Use
Designation with the securing of a Use Permit:
a. All the permitted industrial land uses listed in Item A (2) above.
b. Delicatessen, sandwich shop, or small sit-down restaurant (no
drive-thru restaurants).
c. Automotive service (gas) station.
d. Small grocery store, mini-market, or convenience store.
e. Uses related to automobile dealerships such as tire stores, auto
parts stores, car-washing facilities, automobile repair business, etc.
F. LIGHT MANUFACTURING/MIXED-USE DESIGNATION
1. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Light Manufacturing /Mixed-Use land use designation is to
provide for a compatible mix of light manufacturing activities, commercial land uses,
professional offices, and limited low-density residential uses. The intent is to
provide an opportunity for a diversity of land uses to locate near each other that
would typically be viewed as incompatible, but because of creative site planning and
design, they can function in harmony without adversely impacting one another. For
10
example, the Ordinance permits "live-work" land uses where small dwelling units can
be incorporated into low intensity light manufacturing or warehousing operations.
There is also opportunity for low-density apartments to be situated above commercial
shops and professional offices.
The purpose of the Light Manufacturing /Mixed-Use designation is also to promote
Smart Growth and New Urbanism planning techniques. The Ordinance contains
design standards that will lead to the development of office, light manufacturing,
commercial, and residential uses in a pedestrian oriented, aesthetically pleasing,
mixed-use neighborhood.
The Ordinance requires light manufacturing land uses, if proposed, to be situated
along the railroad tracks on the rear of the parcels, and to develop other land uses
along the front of the parcels on Airport Park Boulevard, except forthe parcels east
of Airport Park Boulevard where light manufacturing land uses can occur
anywhere on the parcels within required yard setbacks. The majority of parking
facilities are required to be situated in-between the light manufacturing and
commercial land uses in the middle of the parcels, rather than along the Airport Paris
Boulevard frontage.
The land uses along Airport Park Boulevard are held to a higher design and site
planning standard than the light manufacturing land uses, because it is situated in
the more visible location, and because light manufacturing land uses are highly
desired and a lesser design standard provides an inherent incentive.
It is possible to develop full light manufacturing, office, or commercial land uses on a
parcel, provided they are laid out and designed to be compatible with surrounding
11
land uses. Professional office and commercial land uses, if proposed as stand along
developments must adhere to a high site planning and design standard.
The regulations are intended to create a compatible mix of land uses with ample
landscaping and strategic open areas, pedestrian walkways, and attractive
architecture in an inviting scale, with hidden parking and practical functionality.
2. General Requirements
a. Light manufacturing and warehousing land uses should be located along the railroad
tracks on the western portion of the current parcels or anywhere on the designated
parcels east of Airport Park Boulevard within required yard setbacks. Light
manufacturing and warehousing can be situated along Airport Park Boulevard if it
conforms to the site planning and design standards for commercial development.
b. The majority of parking spaces for mixed-use development shalt be located in-between
the light manufacturing/warehousing land uses and the land uses along Airport Park
Boulevard. Every attempt shall be made to create parking that cannot be seen from
public streets.
c. Shared access is strongly encouraged between land uses on the same and adjacent
parcels to reduce encroachments onto Airport Park Boulevard.
d. Street trees and a meandering sidewalk are required along Airport Park Boulevard.
e. The architectural facades for buildings situated along and facing Airport Park
Boulevard shall be consistent with Section 5(f) of this Subsection, and shall be
designed to soften height, bulk, and mass.
f. The orientation, height, and design of buildings, as well as the theme for property
development shall be based on creating compatibility between land uses.
g. There is opportunity for low density residential land uses such as apartment units
above offices or commercial spaces, but densities are limited west of Airport Park
12
Boulevard because of airport constraints to a total of 60 people per acre on a given
parcel.
3. Permitted Land Uses
a. Notwithstanding Subsection "K",all light manufacturing, commercial, professional office,
low density residential, and mixed-use projects require the securing of a Use Permit from
the City Planning Commission. The Use Permit process shall include an analysis of site
planning and architecture, pursuant to Section 9262 of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
4. Required Findings
a. Prior to approving a Use Permit for a project situated on land in the Mixed-Use
designation, the Planning Commission and/orthe City Council shall make the following
findings:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ukiah
General Plan, the provisions of the Airport Industrial Park Planned
Development Ordinance, the Ukiah Municipal Code, and the Ukiah Airport
Master Plan.
2. The proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not
be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare.
3. There is sufficient variety, creativity, and articulation to the architecture and
design of the structure(s) to avoid monotony and/or a box-like uninteresting
external appearance.
4. For all land uses other than light manufacturing, there is uniqueness and an
exemplary approach to the site planning, design, and architecture, consistent
with the Site Planning and Design Standards contained herein, that results in
a quality and sophisticated development.
13
5. The Findings shall not be vague. The findings shall be sufficiently detailed to
apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the action by bridging the gap
between the evidence and the decision-maker's conclusions, and shall be
based upon evidence contained in the administrative record.
5. Site Planning and Design Standards -Commercial Development
The following site planning and design standards are specifically adopted for the Light
Manufacturing/Mixed-Use Land Use Designation. They shall apply to all commercial,
professional office, low-density residential, and mixed-use development projects not
involving light manufacturing/ warehousing unless it is situated along the Airport Park
Boulevard street frontage. The Development Standards contained in Section "G" and
the Design Standards in Section "I" of this Ordinance shall apply to the Light
Manufacturing/Mixed Use designation unless superseded by the following specific
standards:
a. Yard Setbacks:
1. Front: 25 feet from the Airport Park Boulevard right-of-way.
Architectural features, such as bay windows, porches and landing spaces,
column treatments, and similar features may extend up to two-feet into the
required front yard setback.
2. Side and Rear: The side and rear yard setbacks shall be determined in the
discretionary review process. Factors that shall be considered include, but
are not limited to Building Code requirements, traffic circulation, landscaping
requirements, softening of the bulk and mass of structures, and compatibility
with adjacent structures and land uses.
3. Relief: Relief from the front yard setback requirements may be granted
through the approval of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 20 of the
14
Ukiah Municipal Code.
b. Maximum Building Height:
1. The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 40 feet, provided it
complies with the side-slope criteria for the Ukiah Airport.
2. Mechanical penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet
beyond the maximum height provided it is adequately screened from view.
3. Relief: Relief from the height standards may be granted through the
discretionary review process if a finding is made that the proposed height is
compatible with the scale and character of the development on adjacent and
nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the health and
safety of the general public.
c. Minimum Lot Area:
1. The minimum lot area for parcels in the mixed-use area shall be determined
through the subdivision and/or discretionary review process. In no case shall
lots be created that are less than 20,000 square feet in size.
d. Maximum Lot Coverage:
1. Commercial and mixed land uses may cover up to 40 percent of a lot
provided that the site planning, architecture, parking, and landscaping are
consistent with the requirements of the AIP Planned Development
Ordinance.
2. Relief: Relief from the lot coverage standard may be granted through the
discretionary review process provided a finding is made that the proposed lot
coverage is compatible with the scale and character of the development on
adjacent and nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the
health and safety of the general public.
15
e. Building Orientation:
1. Buildings shalt be shaped and oriented to take advantage of passive solar
energy and solar collection in the winter, and to control solar cooling loads in
the summer.
2. Buildings shall be shaped and oriented to be compatible with surrounding
land uses in terms of noise, visual privacy, and functionality.
f. Architectural. Design:
1. Buildings shall incorporate projecting columns, exterior wainscoting, framed
panels, and/or other features to provide relief to large open blank walls.
2. Architectural features such as arches, raised and decorative parapets,
decorated and flared cornices, extended eaves and overhangs, balconies,
entry insets, and a variety of roof angles and pitches are required to make
buildings unique and interesting.
3. Windows shall be used to break up the mass and volume of buildings into
smaller components. Buildings shall use different shaped and framed
windows in a coordinated theme. Awnings and other attractive window
treatments are strongly encouraged.
4. All four elevations of buildings shah incorporate the architectural design
requirements listed above in a reasonable and feasible manner.
5. The use of strong or loud colors as the dominant building color shall not be
permitted. The dominant colors used on buildings shall be subdued and
earth tone in nature. Colors of buildings shall be compatible with adjoining
buildings.
6. Storage areas, loading docks and ramps, transformers, storage tanks, refuse
collection areas, mechanical equipment, and other appurtenant items of poor
16
visual quality shall be screened by the use of masonry walls, landscaping
materials, or decorative fencing. All roof mounted electrical and mechanical
equipment and/or ductwork shall be screened from view by an enclosure
which is consistent with the building design. Fences exceeding six (6) feet in
height may be appropriate for some commercial and industrial uses to
screen the outdoor storage of building materials, supplies, construction
equipment, etc. The Planning Commission may consider fences exceeding
six (6) on a case-by-case basis during the review of Site Development and
Use Permit applications.
g. Signs
1. The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign on a site shall be restrained
and harmonious with the building and site.
2. Freestanding signs shall be tastefully designed with an interesting base, and
shall not exceed twelve feet in height from finished grade.
If a freestanding sign is placed on a berm, the Planning Commission shall
have the discretion to limit its height to less than twelve feet from finished
grade.
No pole signs are permitted. Freestanding signs shalt have a decorative
support base.
3. The size and amount of signs shall generally comply with the requirements of
the Ukiah Municipal Code (UMC). The Planning Commission shall have the
discretion to reduce the size and amount of signs to something less than
permitted by the U.M.C. if they make a finding that the proposed size and
amount of signage is out of scale with the building and too dominating on the
site.
17
4. Signs are not permitted on the roof or projecting above the roof of any
building.
5. Relief: Relief from the sign standards may be granted through the
discretionary review process provided a finding is made that the proposed
sign is compatible with the scale and character of the development on
adjacent and nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the
health and safety of the general public.
h. Pedestrian Orientation
1. Pedestrian walkways shall be included that directly and safely link all parking
areas with building entrances, off-site transportation facilities, established
sidewalks, and adjacent public rights-of-way.
2. Outdoor pedestrian spaces shall be landscaped and include such features
as planters along sidewalks, pedestrian oriented signs, attractive street
furniture, low-level lighting, and outdoor seating areas.
3. Lots with frontages along the primary street shall provide a 5-foot wide
meandering sidewalk located within the required front setback. The sidewalk
may be located over the public utility easement. Every effort shall be made
to link developments with attractive and accessible pedestrian facilities.
4. Secondary streets accessing the rear portion of parcels shall include 5-foot
wide sidewalks or alternative pedestrian facilities that link the development
on the rear portion of the parcels with Airport Park Boulevard.
Lighting
Exterior lighting shall be subdued and of low wattage. It shall enhance
building design and landscaping, as well as provide safety and security.
2. Exterior lighting shall not spill out and create glare on adjoining properties,
18
and shall not be directed towards the night sky.
3. Light standard heights shall be predicated on the lighting need of the
particular location and use. Tall lighting fixtures that illuminate large areas
shall be prohibited.
4. Lighting fixtures, standards, and .all exposed accessories shall be
harmonious with building design, and innovative in style
5. All pedestrian and building access areas shall be adequately lighted to
provide safety, security, and aesthetic quality, without violating number 2
above.
j. Energy Conservation
1. Passive solar orientation is required. Active solar design is strongly
encouraged.
2. Deciduous trees andlor other vegetation shall be planted on the south side of
buildings whenever feasible to increase energy efficiency.
3. Sunlight shall be used for direct heating and illumination whenever possible.
4. Solar heating equipment need not be screened, but shall be as unobtrusive
as possible and complement the building design. Every effort shall be made
to integrate solar panels into the roof design, flush with the roof slope.
k. Outdoor Storage and Service Areas
1. Storage areas shall be limited to the rear of a site, and shall be screened
from public view with a solid fence or wall using concrete, wood, stone, brick,
or other similar material.
2. All outdoor storage areas and enclosures shall be screened, when possible,
with landscaping.
3. If trash and recycling areas are required in the discretionary review process,
19
they shall be designed to harmonize with the building and landscaping, and
shall be consistent with the size and design requirements of the Ukiah
Municipal Code.
I. Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall comply with Section "I" of this Ordinance.
2. Landscaping Plans shall include outdoor shaded sittinglresting areas for
employees and the general public, unless infeasible.
m. Ukiah Airport Master Plan
1. All development within the Airport Industrial Park shall comply with the
Federal Aviation Administration side slope criteria, density requirements
(A61"Compatibility Zone = 60 persons per acre / AC=_ CompatibilityZone =
150 people per acre) and aN other applicable provisions of the Ukiah Airport
Master Plan.
n. Public Utility Easements, Public Streets, and Access Driveways
1. All Public Utility Easements, Public Streets, and Access Driveways shall
comply with Section "H" of this Ordinance.
6. Site Planning and Design Standards for Light Manufacturing and Industrial
Development
The Site Planning and Design Standards for Light Manufacturing and Industrial
development are less demanding than those for commercial, professional office and mixed-
use development. The lesser design standards are meant to encourage and promote light
manufacturing and industrial development, particularly along the western portion of the
parcels. The Following Site Planning and Design Standards shall apply to all Light
Manufacturing and Industrial Development:
20
a. Yard Setbacks:
1. Front: 25 feet from the Airport Park Boulevard right-of-way if located along the
frontage. If the development does not have frontage along Airport Park
Boulevard, and is served by a private access easement, the front yard setback
shall be determined in the discretionary review process. Architectural features,
such as bay windows, porches and landing spaces, column treatments, and
similar features may extend up to two-feet into the required front yard setback.
2. Side and Rear: The side and rear yard setbacks shall be determined in the
discretionary review process. Factors that shall be considered include, but are
not limited, to Building Code requirements, traffic circulation, landscaping
requirements, softening ofthe bulk and mass of structures, and compatibilitywith
adjacent structures and land uses.
3. Relief: Relief from the front yard setback requirements may be granted through
the approval of a variance.
b. Maximum Building Height:
1. The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 50 feet, provided it
complies with the side-slope criteria for the Ukiah Airport.
2. Mechanical penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet beyond
the maximum height provided it is adequately screened from view.
3. Relief: Relief from the height standards may be granted through the
discretionary review process if a finding is made that the proposed height is
compatible with the scale and character of the development on adjacent and
nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the health and safety
of the general public.
21
c. Minimum Lot Area:
1. The minimum fot area for light manufacturing and industrial development parcels
in the mixed-use area shall be determined through the subdivision and/or
discretionary review process. In no case shall lots be created that are less than
20,000 square feet in size.
d. Maximum Lot Coverage:
1. Light manufacturing and industrial land uses may cover up to 60 percent of a iot
provided that the site planning, architecture, parking, and landscaping are
consistent v~ith the requirements of the AIP Planned Development Ordinance.
2. Relief: Relief from the lot coverage standard may be granted through the
discretionary review process provided a finding is made that the proposed lot
coverage is compatible with the scale and character of the development on
adjacent and nearby parcels and would not have an adverse impact on the
health and safety of the general public.
e. Building Orientation:
1. Buildings shall be shaped and oriented to take advantage of passive solar
energy and solar collection in the winter, and to control solar cooling loads in the
summer.
2. Buildings shall be shaped and oriented to be compatible with surrounding land
uses in terms of noise, visual privacy, and functionality.
f. Architectural Design:
1. Buildings shall incorporate projecting columns, exterior wainscoting, framed
panels, andlor other features to provide relief to large open blank walls.
2. The use of strong or loud colors as the dominant building color shall not be
permitted. The dominant colors used on buildings shall be subdued and earth
22
tone in nature. Colors of buildings shall be compatible with adjoining buildings.
g. Signs
1. The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign on a site shall be restrained and
harmonious with the building and site.
2. Freestanding signs shall be tastefully designed with an interesting base, and
shall not exceed eight feet in height from finished grade.
If a freestanding sign is placed on a berm, the Planning Commission shall have
the discretion to limit its height to less than eight feet from finished grade. No
pole signs are permitted.
3. The size and amount of signs shall comply with the requirements of the Ukiah
Municipal Code (UMC). The Planning Commission shall have the discretion to
reduce the size and amount of signs to something less than permitted by the
U.M.C. if they make a finding that the proposed size and amount of signage is
out of scale with the building and too dominating on the site.
4. Signs are not permitted on the roof of any building.
5. Relief: Relief from the sign standards may be granted through the discretionary
review process provided a finding is made that the proposed sign is compatible
with the scale and character of the development on adjacent and nearby parcels
and would not have an adverse impact on the health and safety of the general
public.
i. Lighting
1. Exterior lighting shall be subdued. It shall enhance building design and
landscaping, as well as provide safety and security.
2. Exterior lighting shall not spi11 out and create glare on adjoining properties, and
shall not be directed towards the night sky.
23
3. Light standard heights shall be predicated on the lighting need of the particular
location and use. Tall lighting fixtures that itluminate large areas shall be
prohibited.
k. Outdoor Storage and Service Areas
1. Storage areas shall be limited to the rear of a site, and shall be screened from
public view with a solid fence or wall using concrete, wood, stone, brick, or other
similar material.
2. All outdoor storage areas and enclosures shall be screened, when possible, with
landscaping.
Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall generally comply with Section "I" of this Ordinance, although a
lesser amount of landscaping may be approved depending upon the scale,
intensity, and visibility of the development.
m. Ukiah Airport Master Plan
1. All development within the Airport Industrial Park shall comply with the Ukiah
Municipal Airport Master Plan.
n. Pedestrian Orientation
1. Pedestrian walkways shall be included that directly link all parking areas with
building entrances, off-site transportation facilities, established sidewalks, and
adjacent public rights-of-way.
2. Lots with frontages along the primary streets shall provide a 5-foot wide
meandering sidewalk located within the required front setback. The sidewalk
may be located over the public utility easement. Every effort shall be made to
link developments with attractive and accessible pedestrian facilities.
3. Secondary streets accessing the rear portion of parcels shall include 5-foot wide
24
sidewalks or alternative pedestrian facilities that link the development on the rear
portion of the parcels with Airport Park Boulevard.
G. NUISANCES
No lot shall be used in such a manner as to create a nuisance to adjacent parcels.
Proposed uses shall comply with the performance criteria outlined below.
a. All activities involving the storage of flammable and explosive
materials shall be provided with adequate safety devices against
the hazard of fire and explosion by adequate fire-fighting and fire
suppression equipment and devices standard in industry. All
incineration is prohibited.
b. Devices which radiate radio-frequency energy shall be so operated
as not to cause interference with any activity carried on beyond the
boundary line of the property upon which the device is located.
c. The maximum sound level radiated by any use of facility, when
measured at the boundary line of the property upon which the sound
is generated, shall not be obno>aous by reason of its intensity or
pitch, as determined by standards prescribed in the Ukiah Municipal
Code andlor City General Plan.
d. No vibration shall be permitted so as to cause a noticeable t2mor
beyond the property fine.
e. Any use producing emissions shall comply with all the requirements
of the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
25
f. Projects involving the use of toxic materials or hazardous substances
shall comply with all Federal, State, and all local Laws and
regulations.
2. Prohibited Uses or Oaerations
Industrial uses such as petroleum bulk stations, cement batching plants, pulp and
paper mills, lumber mills, refineries, smelting plants, rendering plants, junkyards,
auto wrecking, and similar "heavy industrial" uses which typically create external
and environmental effects are specifically prohibited due to the detrimental effect
the use may have upon the general appearance, function, and environmental quality
of nearby uses.
G. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following standards have been established to ensure compatibility among uses and
consistency in the appearance and character of development. These standards are
intended to guide the planning, design, and development of both individual lots and the
entire Airport Industrial Park. Projects shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for high
quality design, efficient function, and overall compatibility with surrounding land uses.
1. Minimum Lot Requirement
The minimum lot area shall be 20,000 square feet. Each lot shall have a minimum
frontage of 100 feet on a public street. Except for lots fronting on Airport Park
Boulevard, or other public streets shown on the Land Use Map, access easements
to a public street may be authorized in lieu of public street frontage in the discretion
of the appropriate decision-maker and with the approval of the City Engineer.
Proposed access easements shall be consistent with the standards contained in
Table 4-1. The Planning Commission may approve a public street frontage of less
26
than 100 feet for lots located on cul-de-sacs, street curves, or having other
extraordinary characteristics.
2. Maximum Lot Coverage
No more than 40 percent of the lot shall be covered by buildings or structures.
Above ground parking lots and landscaping areas shall not be included in the
calculation of lot coverage. Industrial land uses may cover a maximum of 60
percent of a lot provided that the site planning, architecture, parking, and
landscaping are consistent with the requirements of the AIP Planned Development
Ordinance.
3. Minimum Building Setbacks
All buildings and structures shall be setback from the property line a minimum of
25 feet along the entire street frontage. Lots abutting U.S. Highway 101 shall
maintain a minimum setback of 60 feet from the property line adjacent to the
freeway. Side yard setbacks shall be determined in the Site Development or Use
Permit review process.
4. Maximum Building Height
The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 50 feet. Mechanical
penthouse and equipment may extend an additional 10 feet beyond the maximum
building height.
5. Ukiah Airport Master Plan
All development within the Airport Industrial Park shall comply with the Federal
Aviation Administration side slope criteria, density requirements (AB1"Compatibility
Zone = 60 persons per acre / AC=_ Compatibility Zone = 150 people per acre) and all
other applicable provisions of the Ukiah Airport Master Plan.
27
6. Screening
Storage areas, loading docks and ramps, transformers, storage tanks, refuse
collection areas, mechanical equipment, and otherappurtenant items of poor visual
quality shall be screened by the use of masonry walls, landscaping materials, or
decorative fencing. All roof mounted electrical and mechanical equipment and/or
ductwork shall be screened from view by an enclosure which is consistent with the
building design. Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height may be appropriate for
some commercial and industrial uses to screen the outdoor storage of building
materials, supplies, constnaction equipment, etc. The Planning Commission may
considerfences exceeding six (6) on a case-by-case basis during the review of Site
Development and Use Permit applications.
7. Public Utility Easement
All lots shall provide a 5-foot easement in the required front setback for the provision
of utilities.
8. Sidewalk Requirements
Lots with frontages along the primary street shall provide a 5-foot curvilinear
sidewalk located within the required front setback. The sidewalk may be located
over the public utility easement. Every effort shall be made to link developments
with attractive and accessible pedestrian facilities.
9. Bicycle Lanes
Class I II Bicycle lanes shall be provided on all primary streets according to CalTrans
standards.
10. Develoament Integration
Every effort shall be made to "master plan" development within the Airport Industrial
Park. Applicants shall be encouraged to coordinate development proposals to
28
ensure compatible architectural themes, high quality site planning, efficient and
functional traffic circulation, coordinated pedestrian circulation, and compatible land
uses.
11. Required Public Streets
Lot line adjustments, parcel maps, tentative and final subdivision maps, and Site
Development and Use Permits shall not be approved, unless public streets identified
on the Land Use Map serving the parcels covered by the lot line
adjustment, map or permit have been or will be dedicated to the City of Ukiah upon
approval of the lot line adjustment, map orpermit.
12. Street Width Standards
The following street standards have been established by the Ukiah Department
of Public Works. All primary and secondary streets shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with these standards:
Table 4-1: Minimum Street Standards
rort Park Boulevard and Commerce Drive
Primary Secondary Access
Easement
1. Right-of-way
2. Pavement
a. travel lanes (2)
b. left tum lane
3. Curbs (both sides)
4. Cul-de-sac (turn-arounds)
5. Curb Returns Radius
66 feet 44 feet 32 feet
64 feet 40 feet 30 feet
14 feet 20 feet 15 feet
12 feet 12 feet
1 foot 1 foot
100 feet diameter
35 feet 35 feet
13. Access Driveways and Deceleration Lanes
a. Every effort shall be made to minimize access driveways along Airport Park
Boulevard. All driveway and intersection radii shall be designed to
accommodate heavy truck turning movements, consistent with the
29
requirements of the City Engineer.
b. Every effort shall be made to design common driveways for individual
developments.
c. No Talmage Road access shall be permitted forthe parcel or parcels located
at the southeast comer of Talmage Road and Airport Park Boulevard.
d. All major driveways, as determined by the City Engineer, shall have left turn
pockets in the median area where feasible.
e. Deceleration and acceleration lanes shall not be required unless the City
Engineerdeterminesthey are necessary to ensure safety and efficienttraffic
flow.
14. Minimum Parking and Loading Requirements
a. No loading or unloading shall be permitted on the street in front of the
building. A sufficient number of off-street loading spaces shall be provided
to meet the needs of the approved use. Adequate apron and dock space
also shall be provided for truck maneuvering on individual lots.
b. The number ofentrance/exit driveways shall be limited to one per every 100
feet of street frontage with a maximum curb cut of 40 feet. The Planning
Commission may relax these standards when a comprehensive plan for an
entire block has been prepared and presented to the City Planning
Commission for review and approval.
c. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate the parking
needs of employees, visitors, and company vehicles. The minimum number
of off-street parking spaces shall generally be provided according to the
requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
30
d. The Planning Commission may deviate from the parking requirements
contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code on a case-by-case basis. Any
deviation must be supported by findings related to a unique use, such as a
Mixed-use development, or use not specifically described in the Ukiah
Municipal Code, and findings that otherwise demonstrate no on-street
parking congestion will result.
15. Signage
Except as indicated elsewhere in this Ordinance, building identification and other signs shall
generally comply with the sign regulations for industrial, commercial and office land uses
contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code. All proposed development projects shall include a
detailed sign program.
I. DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines shall be used by the Planning Commission when approving a Site
Development or Use Permit to ensure high quality design, and the coordination and
consistency of development.
1. Landscaping and Open Space
a. A comprehensive landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval
as a part of the Site Development or Use Permit process.
a. Existing trees shall be retained whenever possible.
c. A variety of tree species shall be used that provides diversity in form, texture,
and color.
d. Landscaping at comers should be arranged to maintain traffic visibility.
e. Landscaping along an entire street frontage should be coordinated to
achieve a uniform appearance.
f. Landscaping shall be proportional to the building elevations.
31
g. Landscape plantings shall be those which grow well in Ukiah's climate
without extensive irrigation. Native species are strongly encouraged.
h. All landscape plantings shall be of sufficient size, health and intensity so that
a viable and mature appearance can be attained in three years.
I. Deciduous trees shalt constitute the majority of the trees proposed along the
south and west building exposures; non-deciduous street species shall
be restricted to areas that do not inhibit solaraccess.
j. Parking lots with twelve (12) ormore parking stalls shall have a tree placed
between every four (4) parking stalls within a continuous linear planting strip,
rather than individual planting wells, unless clearly infeasible. Parking lot
trees shall primarily be deciduous species, and shall be designed to provide
a tree canopy coverage of 50 percent over all paved areas within ten years of
planting. Based upon the design of the parking lot, a reduced number of
trees may be approved through the discretionary review process.
k. Parking lots shall have a perimeter planting strip with both trees and
shrubs.
I. Parking lots with twelve (12) or more parking stalls shall have defined
pedestrian sidewalks or marked pedestrian facilities within landscaped
areas and/or separated from automobile travel lanes. Based upon the
design of the parking lot, and the use that it is serving, relief from this
requirement may be approved through the discretionary review process.
m. Street trees may be placed on the property proposed for development
instead of within the public right-of-way if the location is approved by the
City Engineer, based upon safety and maintenance factors.
n. All new developments shall include a laridscaping coverage of 20 percent
32
(20%) of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of
a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable. A minimum of 50 percent
(50%) of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings.
o. Landscaping Plans shall include an automatic irrigation system.
p. All required landscaping for commercial development projects shall be
adequately maintained in a viable condition.
q. The Planning Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City
Council shall have the authority to modify the required elements of a
Landscaping Plan depending upon the size, scale, intensity, and location of
the development project.
2. Orientation and Location of Buildings
a. The location of buildings shall be coordinated with other buildings and open
space on adjacent lots, and should include design elements, oriented to
pedestrian usage, such as, linked walkways and sidewalks.
b. Buildings should be sited to preserve solar access opportunities, and should
include passive and active solar design elements.
c. Buildings should be oriented to minimize heating and cooling costs.
d. Buildings should be creatively sited to provide open views of the site and
surrounding environment.
e. Buildings shall not be sited in the middle oflarge parking lots.
3. Architectural Design
a. Individual projects shall exhibit a thoughtful and creative approach to site
planning and architecture.
b. Projects shall be designed to avoid the cumulative collection of large
structures with similar building elevations and facades.
33
c. Buildings shall be limited in height, bulk, and mass, and shall be designed
to avoid abox-like appearance.
4. Building Exteriors
a. Colors and building materials shall be carefully selected, and must be
compatible with sunounding developments, and shall be finalized during
the Site Development or Use Permit process.
b. The Planning Commission may permit exterior walls of architectural metal
where it is compatible with adjacent structures, and the overall appearance
and character of the Airport Industrial Park.
5. Lighting
a. Alighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval with all Site
Development and Use Permit applications. All lighting plans shall emphasize
security and safety, and shall minimize energy usage.
b. Lighting for developments shall include shielded, nonylare types of lights.
c. Lighting shall not be directed towards Highway 101, the Ukiah Municipal
Airport, adjacent properties, or upwards towards the sky.
6. Design Amenities
a. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided near the entrance to buildings.
One (1) bicycle space shall be provided for every ten (10) employees, plus
one (1) space for every fifty (50) automobile parking spaces.
b. Fountains, kiosks, unique landscape islands, outdoor sitting areas, and other
quality design amenities are encouraged.
J. CIRCULATION PLAN
The Circulation Plan for the Airport Industrial Park is illustrated on the attached Exhibit "B".
As shown, the plan includes points of access at Talmage Road at the north, Hastings
34
Avenue at the northwest, and Airport Road at the southwest. In lieu of the originally
envisioned southern access road (Airport Park Boulevard to Norgard Lane) an emergency
access is provided through the airport to a future gated encroachment along the southern
portion of Airport Road. Internal access includes an extension ofAirport Road from the west
into the southern portion of the site; Airport Park Boulevard from Talmage Road on the
north, extending south to intersect with the Airport Road extension; and Commerce Drive
from west to east in the northern portion of the AIP. All streets within the AIP shall be
public. Property owners of parcels with frontage along the railroad right-of-way are
encouraged to plan for possible future use of the railroad.
K. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
The discretionary permit review process for development projects within the Airport Industrial
Park (AIP) is the same as for discretionary permits elsewhere in the City. As articulated in
Section 9 of this ordinance, a Site Development Permit or Use Permit is required for
development projects proposed in the AIP.
1. Site Develoament Permits and Use Permits
a. As articulated in Section 9 above, development projects within the Airport
Industrial Park are subject to the Site Development or Use Permit process,
depending upon the proposed use and its location. A Site Development
Permit shall not be required for any development proposal requiring a Use
Permit. Within the Use Permit review process, all site development issues
and concerns shall be appropriately analyzed.
b. All Major Use Permits, Variances, and Site Development Permits for
proposed developments within the Airport Industrial Park require City
Planning Commission review and action. Minor Use Permits, Variances,
and Site Development Permits shall be subject to Zoning Administrator
review and action.
c. Decisions on Site Development and Use Permits made by the City Planning
Commission and Zoning Administrator are appealable to the City Council
35
pursuant to Section 9266 of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
d. Major modifications to approved Site Development Permits and Use Permits,
as determined by the Planning Director, shall require the filing of
anew application, payment of fees, and a duly noticed public hearing before
the Planning Commission. Minor modifications to approved Site
Development Permits and Use Permits, as determined by the Planning
Director shall require the filing of a new application, payment of processing
fees and a duly noticed public hearing before the City Zoning Administrator.
e. The Planning Commission's decision on major modifications to an approved
Site Development Permit, Variance or Use Permit is appealable to the City
Council. The Zoning Administrator's decision on minor modifications to an
approved Site Development Permit, Variance or Use Permit is appealable
directly to the City Council.
2. Building Modifications
a. Exterior modifications to existing buildings shall be designed to complement
and harmonize with the design of the existing structure and surrounding
developments.
b. A Site Development Permit shall be required for all substantial exterior
modifications to existing structures, site design elements, and landscaping
within the Airport Industrial Park. The application procedure shall be that
prescribed in Article 20 the Ukiah Municipal Code.
Section Twelve
Whenever a use is not listed in this Planned Development Ordinance as a permitted or
allowed use in any of the land use designations, the Planning Director shall determine whether the
use is appropriate in the land use designation where the subject property is situated, and make a
decision as to whether or not it is an allowed or permitted land use. In making this determination,
the Planning Director shall find as follows:
1. That the use would not be incompatible with existing nearby land uses, or
36
the allowed and permitted land uses listed for the particular land use designation.
2. That the use would not be detrimental to the continuing development of the
area in which the use would be located.
3. That the use would be in harmony and consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Airport Industrial Park Planned Development Ordinance and Ukiah General Plan.
4. In the case of determining that a use not articulated as an allowed or permitted use
could be established with the securing of a Use Permit, the Planning Director shall
find that the proposed use, is similar in nature and intensity to the uses listed as
allowed uses. All determinations of the Planning Director regarding whether a use
can be allowed or permitted in any land use designation within the Airport Industrial
Park shall be final unless a written appeal to the City Council, stating the reasons for
the appeal, and the appeal fee, if any, established from time to time by City Council
Resolution, is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision
was made. Appeals maybe filed by an applicant or any interested party. The City
Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal in accordance to
the applicable procedures as set forth in this chapter. At the close of the public
hearing, the City Council may affirm, reverse, revise or modify the appealed decision
of the Planning Director. All City Council decisions on appeals of the Planning
Director's actions are final for the City of Ukiah.
37
Section Thirteen
This Ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall become effective thirty (30) days
after it is adopted.
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:
ATTEST:
Linda Brown, Deputy City Clerk
Mari Rodin, Mayor
38
Airport Industrial Park Land Use Designation Map
._
-._
,_
_ .. - ,
N
__
Professional
- Office
klighway
- Commercial _
® Retail
Commercial
_ -Industrial
Industrial - {
Auto Commercial
Light Manufacfuring J
Mixed Use I
i u u Fe
0 412 5 825 1 650 2 475 3,300
EXHIBIT "8"
AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
CIRCULATION PLAN
LOMMI
p1AP0
AINGOA
EME0.GENC
ACCESS FP
iALMAGE flOAD
Attachment #
28. A Final Parking Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Development, and shall be approved prior to the issuance of any permits for site preparation,
grading or other ministerial permits. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a. The removal of the twelve (12) parking stalls proposed for the Perkins Street frontage;
b. The reorientation of the driveway ramp proposed for the connection of the proposed
parking lot and the parking lot for the adjacent commercial center; and
c. The designation of longer or combined parking stalls for longer vehicles, such as
recreational vehicles and vehicles pulling trailers.
M/S Mulheren/Anderson to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for Major Use Permit
07-06. Motion carried.
M/S Mulheren/Landis to approve Major Use Permit 07-06 and Major Use Permit 07-06
with Findings 1-11 and Conditions of Approval 1-27, with modification to Condition of
Approval No. 10 and the addition of Condition of Approval No. 28, as outlined in the staff
report and discussed above. Motion carried.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9B. Rezoning 06-46, as filed by Redwood Business Park to rezone 6 parcels from
"Industrial/Automotive Commercial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use" (8 acres), and 3
parcels from "Industrial to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed" (6.5 acres). The property is located in
the Southern portion of the Airport Industrial Park, east of Airport Park Boulevard (APN 180-
080-58,59, 64-67 and 180-110-8-10).
Planning Director Stump stated the owner of nine parcels (13.5 acres) in the southeast
portion of the AIP has applied to change the zoning from "Industrial/Automotive Commercial"
and "Industrial" to "Light Manufacturing/Mixed Use." He provided a brief history of the AIP,
noting that developments are governed by the AIP Planned Development Ordinance No.
1051 as addressed on page 2 of the staff report. The AIP PD Ordinance provides for
specific site planning, landscaping, and building design standards for aesthetic purposes
and has been amended several times over the years to accompany the various land use
developments.
Planning Director Stump advised in 1995, the City Council certified a program EIR for
build-out of the AIP based on a series of development assumptions that included types of
land uses, building intensities, and square footages. The document identified a number of
significant impacts that would result from build-out whereby a comprehensive mitigation
program to reduce or eliminate these impacts was implemented. The EIR mitigation program
has consistently been imposed for all new developments. The issue of traffic has been a
major concern in this area wherein the City made a number of improvements to Talmage
Road and other streets in the area, as well as in the AIP. A traffic impact/capital
improvement fee was adopted for future developments.
Planning Director Stump stated the intent of the current zoning designations for six of the
parcels was to encourage and attract automobile sales and related land uses while
preserving the opportunity for industrial development for the remaining three parcels. The
"auto row" opportunity and/or industrial land uses have not been proposed where the
original vision of predominately industrial use has evolved to a wide variety of uses to
include a mix of professional office, retail sales, restaurants and hotels. If the rezone is
approved, it is anticipated that retail/commercial and restaurant land uses will likely be
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 2007
Page 11
proposed, which have been the predominate types of developments that have occurred in
the AIP. Abroad range of land uses would be allowed with the proposed mixed use zoning
designation to allow for manufacturing, retail/commercial, professional office development
opportunities and/or a mix of these.
The issue of traffic has been a major concern as the AIP continues to builds out. A traffic
Study was required to determine the existing level of traffic, the projected traffic resulting
from the proposed rezone, and whether or not the existing traffic mitigation program was
adequate to handle increased volumes of traffic in which the study determined the existing
required and planned traffic improvements for the AIP are adequate to handle increased
traffic except for the Commerce Drive and Airport Park Boulevard intersection. This
intersection will need a traffic signal.
Exhibit "A" shows a layout of the land use for the AIP.
Commissioner Mulheren addressed the issue of increased traffic in the area as the AIP
builds out, and noted the widening of the left-turn lane to two lanes into the AIP will help
mitigate the traffic congestion. However, if a very large retail establishment were proposed
for the AIP such as COSCO, alternative plans for traffic improvements would have to be
studied because the Talmage/Airport Park Boulevard intersection as it currently operates
would not be able to handle the increased traffic.
Planning Director Stump concurred, and noted a primary concern at the Talmage/Airport
Park Boulevard is to be able to accommodate the large trucks where traffic impact fees are
being collected to make the necessary improvements.
Commissioner Landis addressed the proposed mixed-use component in conjunction with
allowing for residential buildings in an area near the Airport in terms of safety.
Planning Director Stump noted a distinction between the land uses, particularly for mixed-
use and the accompanying density constraints for compliance with the Airport Compatibility
Zone regulations. Residential developments must be consistent with the Airport
Compatibility Zone where the land is situated in terms of the density issue. High density
residential developments on the west side of Airport Park Boulevard would not be allowed
because of the close proximity to the Airport. However, the Airport Compatibility Zone on the
east side of Airport Park Boulevard is different because this area is further from the Airport
whereby density could be higher for residential development. It may that at some future
point the AIP PD Ordinance may need to be amended to accompany more residential
development, if such development is proposed.
Commissioner Molgaard supports allowing senior housing in the area because there are
many services within walkable distance.
There was a discussion about the likelihood of affordable housing in the area where people
would have the opportunity to live/work in the area.
Chair Pruden commented the parcels at the southern end of the AIP are environmentally
sensitive and the most beautiful with the natural riparian habitat allowing for nice living
opportunities.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 12
June 13, 2007
Applicant Gary Akerstrom commented on the history and reasons for the separate
assessor's parcel numbers in connection with the zoning designations of the parcels being
considered for rezone as shown on Exhibit "A" of the staff report. The City owns
redevelopment property at the southern end of the AIP and because of land constraints,
close proximity to the Airport, and other related issues/regulation compliance issues, this
property has never been developed. While the potential for residential development in this
area exists, it may not be feasible due to the constraints/restrictions.
It may be that RDA monies could be considered for certain development projects proposed
in the AIP. He was not supportive of developing low income housing in the AIP because of
problems relative to this issue wherein the safety of children is a primary concern.
Industrial development in the AIP has not been feasible in the AIP due to land constraints,
traffic impact problems, cost factors, compliance with the AIP PD Ordinance regulations, and
other relative restrictions where competition with industrial development in the County
cannot compare. Therefore, a rezone makes good sense as it would provide the opportunity
to promote developments providing for a compatible mix of light manufacturing activities,
commercial land uses, professional offices, and limited low density residential uses that
would highly complement the existing uses, meet the needs/services of the community,
'pencil out' economically, as well as provide the opportunity to do some architecturally
pleasing developments that preserve/enhance the natural beauty of the land.
The "auto row" opportunity has been in place with the current zoning designation for some
time where only one dealership has been proposed and approved and no industrial land
uses have been proposed for the perspective zoning designations in the last 15 years. The
growth pressure/patterns in the Ukiah Valley have changed where there are currently large
scale urban-type development projects proposed and being considered outside of the City
limits. It may be that intensive retail commercial development belongs in the City and efforts
should be made to consider infill developments and/or apply the mixed-use component
where feasible. The proposed rezone provides the opportunity for this to occur.
Lisa Mammina expressed concern about traffic on Commerce Drive and supports that
traffic studies have been conducted in this regard. She expressed interest in constructing a
freeway on-ramp to the south on property currently owned by the RDA. She addressed the
community's need for affordable and senior housing, and commented if the Form Based
Zone project had been in place when the Walgreens project was being considered, there
may very well be a different scenario wherein the project would incorporate amixed-use
residential component thus creating alive/work environment. She recommended the
Commission have a discussion about density in the AIP and how the existing requirement
can restrict certain types of developments.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:54 p.m.
Chair Pruden commented the rezone would allow the Planning Commission the opportunity
to plan well for what developments would be most appropriate and to make sure new
projects and land uses are developed to their best and highest potential incorporating
appropriate design standards rather than the 'piece meal' fashion that has typically been the
case in the AIP.
The Commission concurred that the rezone would provide the opportunity to plan for some
very nice projects.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 2007
Page 13
The Commission expressed concern about the existing infrastructure in the AIP, particularly
the lack of sidewalks on Airport Park Boulevard, recognizing the need for developments to
be more pedestrian friendly, especially if residential uses are allowed.
Planning Director Stump in response to discussions regarding the application of mixed-
use, Smart Growth, Green program concepts in the AIP, he noted the purpose and intent
section on page 10 of the Amended AIP PD Ordinance addresses the concepts of Smart
Growth and New Urbanism and states, "the purpose of the Light Manufacturing/Mixed-Use
designation is also to promote Smart Growth and New Urbanism planning techniques. The
Ordinance contains design standards that will lead to the development of office, light
manufacturing, commercial, and residential uses a pedestrian or oriented, aesthetically
pleasing mixed-use neighborhood." This section further states "the Ordinance permits "live-
work" land uses where small dwelling units can be incorporated into low intensity light
manufacturing or warehousing operations." This is the type of zoning opportunities that
could be proposed for the properties proposed for rezoning.
There was Commission discussion regarding the likelihood of affordable housing and/or low-
income housing opportunities in the AIP. The density requirement regulating development
would likely impede on these types of development, since higher density units would
probably be the types of developments proposed because they would be the most
economically feasible.
The Commission agreed it may be necessary to look at further amending the AIP PD
Ordinance to address allowing for a residential component in the AIP.
Chair Pruden commented while the Ordinance allows for housing, the element of housing
would have to go through a different mechanism in order to attract a developer interested in
doing a housing project because it must 'pencil out' economically.
M/S Mulheren/Molgaard to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for Airport Industrial Park Rezoning 06-46. Motion carried by an all
AYE voice vote.
M/S Mulheren/Molgaard to recommend to the City Council approval of Airport Industrial
Park Rezoning 06-46. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote.
10. ON-GOING EDUCATION
10A. Ten Things Wrong With Sprawl, James M. McElfish, Jr., Environmental Law Institute,
January 2007.
The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioners' information.
11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Stump reported the proposed Anka Behavioral Health project has been
withdrawn. Staff will provide City Council with a status report on sign enforcement, as well
as an update on UVAP at the regular June 20, 2007 meeting. There is a County Board of
Supervisors meeting to discuss 'dead growth and development in the Valley' on June 26,
2007. City of Ukiah Budget hearings have been postponed until July and Planning
Department budget will provide appropriations for training and continuing education.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 2007
Page 14
I
Airport Industrial Park
Proposed Rezoning
~uiy zoos
,,.,:.~~, ,y. ~ ..-
North
WALMART
~, FRIEDMAN
BR07HER5
KEN FOyyLER
AUTOM07'IVE
MENDOCINO
BREWING
COMPANY
I
14.5 ACRES
PROPOSED FOR
REZONING
i
0
.y
S
South
ITEM NO: 7a
DATE: July 23, 2007
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER
RESPONDING TO THE UKIAH VALLEY AREA PLAN (UVAP)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOTICE OF PREPARATION
SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to
review and approve the City Council Subcommittee comment letter responding to the Ukiah Valley
Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation. The letter will be delivered separately
to the Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and approve letter to Mendocino County responding to the
Notice of Preparation for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Environmental Impact Report.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not approve letter and provide direction to Staff.
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: City Council
Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments: None
APPROVED: ~
Candace Horsley, City Mana r
ITEM NO: 8a
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2007
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO SHN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS WITH COMPENSATION NOT TO EXCEED $21,500, FUNDED
BY FEMA, FOR THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR OF THE FISH HATCHERY
EASEMENT; AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT.
SUMMARY: During the winter storm event of 2005/2006 the easement that provides
access to the City of Ukiah's fish hatchery parcel was significantly damaged. This damage
was caused by a culvert that filled with storm debris and was overtopped with storm water
that eroded the out slope of the road. Staff from both FEMA and the City inspected this
site and FEMA has guaranteed funding for the repair of the site. As City Staff further
analyzed this site it was determined that significant soil stabilization will be required.
Continued on page 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO SHN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS WITH COMPENSATION NOT TO EXCEED $21,500 FOR THE
PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER ESTIMATE FOR
THE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR OF THE FISH HATCHERY EASEMENT.
2. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSULTANT SERVICE
AGREEMENT.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS: Direct staff to stop progress on this project and
provide alternative direction.
FUNDING:
Amount Budgeted From Acct No. To Acct. No. Additional Funds Reouested
N/A FEMA.011 100.3001.250 $21,500
Citizens Advised: N/A
Requested by: Tim Eriksen, City Engineer and Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Tim Eriksen, City Engineer and Director of Public Works
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments: 1. Proposal from SHN dated 7/11/2007
2. FEMA Project Worksheet # 11-12
Approved:
Candace Horsley, City Manag r
Page 2
July 23, 2007
AWARD CONSULTANT SERVICE AGREEMENT TO SHN CONSULTING ENGINEERS WITH
COMPENSATION NOT TO EXCEED $21,500 FOR THE PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND ENGINEER ESTIMATES FOR THE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR OF THE FISH HATCHERY
EASEMENT, AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSULTANT SERVICE
AGREEMENT
Staff was concerned that FEMA would not fund the expenses incurred for the design
efforts for this project as it was not identified in the original scope of work defined by FEMA
on the project work sheet (Attachment 2). Staff took special care to discuss this issue with
FEMA staff to understand the process and that these design expenses will be funded by
FEMA.
Special geotechnical engineering skills are necessary for this design. Two firms who
possessed these skills were requested to propose on this project. They are Rau and
Associates and SHN. Staff escorted both engineering firms to the site and discussed the
project. Rau and Associates opted to not propose on the project. SHN has proposed on
the project and their proposal is attached (Attachment 1). Staff has discussed the project
timeline with SHN and they are committed to putting resources necessary to keep this
project on its aggressive timeline. This timeline is such that the construction is scheduled
to be completed by October 18, 2007.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The project site is located near the end of the active road. The road is rarely used and
staff considered not repairing this slide based on the fact that there is little use. However,
the property owner and staff have concerns that if this slide is left as it is that it may impact
Gibson Creek with sediment load. It is for this reason that staff is recommending the
design and ultimately the reconstruction of this road.
Fax from : 707 459 1884 tl'I-11-tl"/ 11:01 Yg: Z
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS, INC.
493 South Main Street • Willits, CA 95490 • 707/459-4518 • FAX' 707:459-1864 • infoeshn-willits.com
ATTACHMENT '
Ref: 407000.011
July 11, 2007
Mr. Tim Eriksen, PF.
Dir. Public works/City Engineer
Citv of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 9482
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES -FISH HATCHERY ROAD REPAIR PROJECT
Dear Mr. Eriksen,
SHN is pleased to provide this proposal to perform geotechnical review, surveying and design
engineering tasks related to work required for the FEh7A authorized slide damage to the
existing access road from West Standley Street to the site of the former Fish Hatchery. As you
realize, this work is in an environmentally sensitive area, adjacent to Gibson Creek, and
contnmed sliding, if left unabated, could further threaten the creek. Our proposed scope of
services to be provided is to prepare contract documents fw• the purpose of competitive
bidding to return fl1e condition of the road such that it will provide seasonal access limited to
light pickup loading.
Work will include site reconnaissance, soils investigation and geotechnical design
recommendation memorandum, localized topographic survey, setting temporary controls, and
TIN preparation, preparation of design/construction drawings and specifications, incidental
support of bid process, preparation of an Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs,
periodic geotechnical observations of cut and fill, compaction testing during placement of fill,
identification of storm water pollution and erosion control measures, and incidentals related to
the work.
Our proposal does not include obtaining approvals of agencies other than the City of Ukiah, or
mitigations for other earthwork repairs outside the area of this identified FEMA authorized
repair area. It also does not offer the extensive geotechnical investigation necessary if a higher
level of service is desired for the road.
SHN proposes to provide these services for aNot-to-Exceed amount of $21,500 as detailed in
Exhibit 1 attached to this letter, and Exhibit 2, SHN's current fee schedule. Final compensation
for the work will be the total accrued cost for the hours expended at the hourly rates stated in
Civil • Environmental • Geotechnical • Surveying
Construction Monitoring • Materials Testing
Economic Development • Planning & Permitting
tax tram ~ rtl( 4S7 1i3tl4 n1-11-Of 1!•OL ry
blr. 't. ErS ksen, Juh~ 11, 2007, Page 2
the fee schedule. I have a]so enclosed, as Exhibit 3, a proposed schedule intended to expedite
the work to allow completion before the upcoming winter season. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you require further information related to this work.
Sincerely,
1
Diana Steele, PF.
Project Manager
Div15/ alh
Enclosures: Exhibit 1 -Cost Estimate
Exhibit 2 -Schedule of Charges
Exhibit 3 -Proposed Schedule
p~-Sy-t]( ~-
. u ~ -cow iao'i
r an ~. c'.~m
p p M M O
N
o'er.,{ N O ? r; r
G O ~ N N
N ~ ~ N M ~
W ~
T
t4
d
O O
'O F
i i"
~ _~
v ~ W
y Nr K ~ ~
~k'~~o°
.-~ V1 ~ f6 0
'~ ~ W. og
W`~" oN.o
~ ~ ~~~
U °~' CJ v
G eC
•;~ x
W y
W
.. o _
c m °
t t r' -~
`
m
~ w
y o
L F' O N ~ ~ ~
N
~ W M1
V ~
O
R ~ 'L ~ N
N
~a N
x '^
p
o
~
C W ~ N
y ~
o
o
V w m
O
0 V
C
= W ~ N
~
°~ 3
-O
O
~
Y m
w
w $
c 'g o co
Y Q M1
U ~
O
m
~ a
w ,A
V
m
3
0
m
a
Q
a N
O
~ N
O ~
>.
'~ ~ m
m y
v ~
m c
c
0
a°o `° 0 0 0°
r» m m .n
M
V
N °
o
u~
~
m
c°o
u;
V
~ N
d ~ ~
u
s
m
r
ti
w
N
Q
U
r
o
U
o
U °'
~ ~:;
a
E ~
L b
~
o F
E d L ~
o ~ r..
m
mac. ~' ~
m S :•
C V
F' m
p
$
o
F
s
~
~ a
4
~ c
~
~
C '['
A
•V y
U
~ .V ~` a+
C>
o C Y•
~ C
~ y ^ ~
° v 4 •p
a a
b
o °' Cf
m ~
C
G
g $
y
sax src~m rnr Y~7 ~aax or-ii-ur xr .uc ry• 3
EXHIBIT 2
Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc.
Fee Schedule
January 1, 2007
When accurate definition of the proposed work is not possible, an hourly charge out rate for
determining compensation shall be used. Hourly charge rates include payroll costs, overhead, and
profit. Hourly services are billed portal to portal and are subject to a 2-hour minimum. Current rates
are as follows:
HourI Char a Rates
Positions Hourl Rates
Principal Engineer $120.00 - $140.D0
Principal Engineering Geologist $110.00 - $135.00
Principal Surveyor $ 110.00 - $125.00
Pzoject Manager $ 75.00 - $135.00
Senior Planner $ 85.00 - $115.00
Senior Engineer $ 85.00 - $]35.00
Senior Geotechnical Engineer $ 85.00 - 5125.00
Senior Geologist $ 85.00 - $120.00
Senior Surveyor $ 80.00 - $105.00
Engineer $ 70.00 - $ 95.00
Traffic Engineer $ 80.00 - $120.00
Geologist $ 55.00 - $ 95.00
Certified Industrial Hygienist $ 90.00 - $110.00
Environmental Specialist $ 60.00 - $110.00
Environmental Planner $ 60.00 - $ 90.00
Staff Surveyor3 $ 60.00 - $ 95.00
Assistant Engineer $ 60.00 - $ 90.00
Survey Party Chief> $ 60.00 - S 80.00
Junior Engineer $ 50.00 - $ 65.00
Engineering Technician/Draftsperson3 $ 50.00 - $ 80.00
Lab/Field Technician3 $ 50.00 - $ 75.00
Survey Technician3 $ 50.00 - $ 70.00
Technical Writer $ 45.00 - $ 65.00
Clerical $ 35.OD - $ 55.00
Ex ert Witnessz,a $225.00 - $200.00
i Incidental expenses, i.e. Lodging, meals, airplane tickets, etc., aze billed at cost plus 15°~.
Minimum daily charge is four hours.
s Rates depend on the specific personnel assigned and if prevailing wage rates are required in the area
of work.
a Rates fox Ex ert Witness are char ed for re aration and testimon for both de osition s and
N:\adnun_files\Sdtedule of Charges\2007 Willits.doc SHN 2007 Fee Sckedule
A':\admin_files\Schedule of Chazges\20076Villits.dx SHN 2007 Fee Schedule
Reimbursables
The followin direct char es are char ed in addition to the hourl char a rates set forth above.
Direct Charges:
Engineering Copies (D or E size) $ 2.00/ea.
CADD plots $ 15.00/ea.
Copies $ .15/ea.
Equipment and other expenditures (required for projects) Cost + 15 ro
FAX $ 2.00/sheet
Field office Cost + 15
Filing fees, telephone expense, etc. Cost + 15°6
Iron pipe, monuments, flagging, etc. Cost + 15%
Mylars $ 6.00/ea.
Services of other consultants Cost + 15%
Stakes, hubs, lath, etc. Cost + 15°k
Subsistence, air travel, etc. Cost + 15°0
Vehicles $ 10.00/day plus
$ .60/mile
Field Testin and E ui ment:
Anchor bolt testing $ 10.00/hour plus operator
COQ Meter $ 10.00/day
Concrete Compression Impact Hammer $ 25.00/day*+
Core Drilling Machine $ 75.00/day + $3.00/inch cored
Dissolved Oxygen Meter $ 50.00/day*+
Expendable Supplies $ 40.00/day*+
Fvrite Meter $ 25.00/day*+
Generator $ 50.00/day*+
Geophysical Equipmenk By Quotation
Grundfos Controller & Pump (50 ft. max well depth) $100.00/day
Grundfos Controller 8: Pump (>50 ft. well depth) $200.00/day*+
Hand Auger $ 20.00/day
Health & Safety Level D $ 30.00/day*+
Health & Safety Level C $ 60.00/day*+
I
High Pressure Controller $ 60.00/day*+
Inclinometer $200.00/ day*
LEL Meter $ 50.00/ day*+
Nuclear Density Testing $ 15.00/hour plus operator
Other equipment including drill rigs, backhoes, etc. Cost + 15°'°
ORP Meter $ 15.00/day
OVA $100.00/day*+
Ozone Sparge Trailer $500.00/day
Peristaltic Pump $ 50.00 f day*+ ii
pH/Conductivity Meter $ 40.00/day*+
Power Auger $100.00/day*+
Pumps $ 45.00/day*+
Quad ATV) $150.00/da
* 1 J2 Day Minimum Charge.
+ 25°k Weekly Discount, 40% Monthly Discount.
(7) If concrete is sampled and delivered to SHN lab by outside con tractor, add $5.00/ea. for processing and
curin r ASTM C-37.
\4\admi~i files\Schednle of Charges\20074Villi[s.dot SHN 2007 Fee Schedule
tax from rtlI 467 laa4 tl/-11-tl! 1/:l73 Yg: a
Reimbursables, Continued
Field Testing and E ui ment, Continued:
Rebar Locating Device $ 5.00/hour plus operator
Roto-hammer $ 50.00/day*+
Skidmore-Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calibration $ 40.00/day
Soil/Gas Purge Pumps $ 30.00/day*+
j Soil Gas Probes $200.00/day*+
Torque Wrench (to 1000 ft lbs) $ 5.00/hour
~ Turbidity Meter $ 20.00/day*+
Ultrasonic Test Device $ 12.00/hour plus operator
Vapor Extraction System $500.00/day*+
Water Level Data Logger $ 60.00/day*+
Water Level Meter $ 30.00/day*+
Well Point $ 50.00/day
Well Wizard $100.00/da *+
Surve E ui ment•
;~ Data Collector $ 5.00/hour
~~ GPS Station $ 65.00/hour
j Level
Robotic Total Station $ 25.00/day*
$ 40.00/hour
Total Station $ 7.50/hour
Total Station w/Data Collector $ 12.50/hour
Laborato Tests:
Aggregate Tests for Conaete Mix Design $15D.00/stockpile
Asphalt Content by Nuclear Method $ 75.00/test
Asphalt Content Gauge Calibration $190.00/ea.
Asphalt Extraction (°,b Bitumen) $150.00/ea.
Brass Tube (Liner)
~ $ 5.00/ea.
Cleanliness Value (CT 227) $ 75.00/ea. ,
Compaction Curves (ASTM D 1557 or Caltrans CT216): .I
4-inch Mold $125.00/ea. ~
6-inch Mold $145.00/ea.
Check Point $ 40.00/ea.
Concrete Compressive Strength (CT 521 or ASTM C39) $ 35.00/ea.(I)
Concrete Linear Shrinkage (3 Bars) $200.00
Concrete D4oisture $ 25.00/test
Consolidation Test $300.00/ ea.
Direct Shear, per point: {ASTM D3080)
Consolidated-Drained (CD) $130.00/point
Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) (Modified ASTM) $100.00/point
Consolidated-Undrained (CU) (Modified ASTM) $115.00/point
Additional cycles (each) $ 50.00/ea.
Disposable Concrete Molds $ 2.D0/ea.
Durability Index $ 60.00/ea.
Expansion Index $150.00/test
Frreproofing Density $ 50.00/ea.
Grout Com ressive Stren th $25.00/ ea.
* 1/2 Day Minimum Charge.
+ 25% Weekly Discount, 40% Monthl}' Discount.
(1 If concrete is sam led and delivered to SHN lab b outside contractor, add $5.00/ea. for rocessin and
N:\adirwi_files\Sdiedule of Charges\2007 Willics.doc SHlV 2007 Fee Schedule
.ate .,. ~~~ .~,~ z.,~ ~.,.,z .~~ ~~ .,~ ~~ w .y
~__ curin er ASTM C-31.
Reimbursables, Continued
Laborato Tests, Continued:
LA Ratder(abrasion resistance) $150.00/test
Liquid Limit $ 60.00/ea.
' Masonry Block Compressive Strength $ 65.00/ea.
Masonry Block Absorption & Moisture $ 50.00/ea.
Masonry Block Linear Shrinkage $ 85.00/ea.
Masonry Block Prism Compressive Strength $100.00/ea.
Masonry Core Shear Test $ 50.00/core
Moisture Content $ 10.00/ea.
Moisture-Density Test $25.00/ea.
Particle Size Analysis (ASTM 422) $ 75.00/ea.
Percent Crushed Particles $125.00/ea.
Percent Entrained Air Iri Concrete $ 10.00/ea.
Percent Organics $ 50.00/ea.
Plastic Limit $ 40.00/ea.
Plasticity Index $100.00/ea.
R-Value $225.00/ea.
Rice Specific Gravity of Asphalt (ASTEv1 D2041) $ 70.00/ea.
Sample Preparation $ 40.00/hour
Sand Equivalent $ 50.00/ea.
Sawing Rocks and Concrete Cores $ 30.00/unit
Sieve Analysis-Coarse $ 40.00/ea.
Sieve Anal}°sis--Fine $ 50.00/ea
Sieve Analysis-Passing 200 $ 45.00/ea.
Specific Gravity, Rock $ 45.00/ea.
Stabilometer of Premixed AC $120.00/ea.
Sulfate Soundness $ 80.00/cycle ~
Swell Test $ 55.00/point
Triaxial Compression, Remolded Permeability Cost + 15
USDA Bulk Density Test $ 20.00/ea.
USDA Textural Suitability Test $ 50.00/ea. ~~
Unconfined Compression $ 50.00/ea. ~~
Unit Wei ht of Concrete $ 50.00/unit
Notes:
i
All samples of soil or rock from physical testing are discarded 30 days after submission of final report unless prior j
arrangements are made. Samples of soil or rock submitted for testing for hazardous substances will be returned to ''
the Client, who is responsible for proper disposal.
This fee schedule is subject to review and adjustment, as required.
Certain services may require prevailing wages or overtime at premium pay to SHN employees. fn such
circumstances, fees will be adjusted to reflect increased labor costs.
N:\adxnin_files\Schedvle of Charges\2007 Willits.doc SHN 2007 Fee Schedule
1'Rn +l'V 1'1 ~ IVI Y'J 100Y
0
nr-ii-nr v ~tls rg~ 1tl
O O O _ O O D O O O Q O
~ Q ~ d ~ ~ ~
a
0
r
(~
0
d
a
L
.~
Q
d
~_
E-'
m ,~ Z,
W O
Y
•~
V~
~_
LL
H
7
7
a
M
M
a0 ~
M M
N
r
N
a~
4`
o Q ~ cn
rn
M
N N N
W
T 4~ a~
~ ~ r
'7 N
.... ............
_ _
_.~ ____
• a
N
i s
f~
~ o
a~
r ~-
O
M
m ~
O
M
m s
N
N
3 o
(~
N
co 0
O
~-
rn o
N
~
rn O
M
~
a
O~
n r r 0 o ti ~ 0 0 0
a c o
~
M o c M N M
N r N N c0 (fl N r, ~ ~
r; ~ ~ r r m w ao a~ rn
m
_
~
C U
X C
y..
0
j C
C "'
C y
O
~
W U U
_..,
y
O
N N
j~
~
O
~ `
T
~ ~
d d OJ ~
U
O. U ..L.
R N
T ~ ~ id C
~ 7` O
4 O
N d V y ~ p U 0 ~0
0 U V U
a
tax : rc~n
ATTACHMENT .~
Federal Emergeatcy Management Agency
Pro'ect Worksheet
Declaration No.
FEMn- 1628 Dx- CA Project No.
11-12 FLPS No.
045-8113d-DO Date
03/22/06 Category
C
Damaged Facility: Work Completed °a of
Fish I-Iatchery Access Road Delc:
3/25/2006 PerCrnt
0%
Applicant:
The Ciry of Ukiah County:
Mendocino
Location:
Fxtention of Old Standley Street along north side of Gibson CYeek Latitude:
39.15017 Longitude:
-123.22791
Damage Description & Dimensions:
Heavy rain and runoff from steep terraur caused 32' x S' x 4' (9 CY) of uphill embankment to slip on to the road surface, 150' x i 2' x 2" (I 1 CY)
of road surface was washed ou[, 150' of drainage ditch was silted in, the road supporting embankment is steep, rturs 50' down to Gibson Creek,
and an upper 12' x 20' x 6' (53 CY) section of road supporting embankment washed out, a 12" x 20' Corrugated Metal Pipe {CMP) was clogged
with rocks, sediments and cannot lx cleaned. The aggregate road is owned/maintained by the Applicant and provides access to a fish hatchery.
The ruad is also gated to prevent access by parry goers.
Scope of Work:
1) Remove, haul and properly dispose of I2' x 5' x 4' (9.0 GY) of slide material from the road surface, 2). Due to the stcepness of the
embankment, install 12' x 3' x 30' (40 CY) of gibion wall as ttre only prac4cal method of repair and backfill 12' x 30' x 3' (40CY) behiud the
gabion waft with unclassified fill, 4) remove and ceplaee the 12" x 20' CMP, 5). Grade 150' x 12' (600 SF) of road surface, 6) clean and shape
l so' of drainage ditch, 7) install 150' x 12' x 2" (1 t GY) of aggregate road surface.
This Project Number represents [tern Numbers 11 and 12 on the Applicant's LOP (List of Projects)
SEE CONTINUATION SHEE
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster conditions at the site? r YES No
Special t'OnSiderd[lOrr5lSSUeS 1nCluded? yE5 J NC
Is there insurance coverage on this facility? YES ~ NO
Hazard Mitigation proposal inctuded9 y~ r NC
Project Costs
Item Code Narrative Quart. Unit Unit Price Cost
1 9999 RS Means Estimate 1 LS 17,715.00 17,715.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
_ Total Cost $17,715
P12II'AR.EDSY: q ,n r a p ~ TITLE: .y 'atl>`
APPLICANT: ~ DAT&: ~ -i'l - ,
r
ITEM NO. 8b
DATE: July 23 2007
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE TERM
EXPIRATION/VACANCIES RELATIVE TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND GOLF
COMMISSION, AIRPORT COMMISSION, AND DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW
COMMITTEE, AND RESOLUTION APPOINTING INCUMBENTS TO THE PRGC
A News Release was issued on June 29, 2007 soliciting applicants to fill the expired terms of the
Parks, Recreation & Golf Commission (4), Airport Commission (2), and Demolition Permit Review
Committee (1). As of the July 18, 2007 noon deadline, applications were received from the
following:
Parks, Recreation & Golf Commission: All four incumbents have reapplied, and there are no new
applicants. Per Policy Resolution 2006-61, attached, you may choose not to re-interview
incumbents, and merely re-appoint them to a new three-year term.
Airport Commission: The press release noticed the City Council commission appointments for a
regular meeting in August, and will be before the City Council on August 15. Four applications
have been received for the two open seats. The City Council needs to determine whether or not
they wish to interview the applicants on August 15, as part of the appointment process.
Demolition Permit Review Committee: No applications have been received to date. With Council's
concurrence we will plan to advertise this committee opening again.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution making appointments to the Parks, Recreation
and Golf Commission, and determine if the City Council wants to interview applicants for the
Airport Commission on August 15, 2007.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Direct staff to re-advertise for the vacancies.
Citizen Advised: n/a
Requested by: Ukiah City Council
Prepared by: Linda Brown, Deputy City Clerk
Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager
Attachments: 1. Resolution making appointments to the Parks, Recreation & Golf
Commission
2. News Releases announcing vacancies
3. Resolution No. 2001-61 -Establishing
4. Listing of F
APPROVED:
Candace Horsley, City I~lanager
Received
Procedures for Appointment
Page 1 of 1
Attica ~m~nt #
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF UKIAH MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE
PARKS, RECREATION 8~ GOLF COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the annual expiration of terms for City Commissions occurred on June
30, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the vacancies were duly advertised until the close of applications on
July 18, with submitted applications timely received and submitted to Council for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, four applications were received, and all are currently incumbents;
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 Commission:
PARKS, RECREATION AND GOLF COMMISSION
Jonah Freedman to fill a term to June 30, 2010;
Chamise Cubbison to fill a term to June 30, 2010;
Done Rones to fill a term to June 30, 2010;
Alex Goeken to fill a term to June 30, 2010.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mari Rodin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda C. Brown, Deputy City Clerk
At,._ .., ~ment # ~
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2007
For further information:
Linda C. Brown
463-6213
CITY COMMISSION SEATS OPEN
UKIAH, CA. -The City of Ukiah announces the vacancies for the following
open seats for three of its Commissions including the Parks, Recreation and
Golf Commission, Airport Commission, and an open seat on the Demolition
Permit Review Committee. Qualified individuals who would like to make a
difference in the Community and are interested in serving, are encouraged to
apply.
Applications are located at the reception counter in the Administrative wing of the
Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue; and at the Ukiah Civic Center Annex,
located at 411 Clay Street. Individuals may also call the City of Ukiah at 463-
6213 for an application to be mailed, faxed, or e-mailed. The submittal deadline
is July 18. Interviews will be held and appointments considered at a regular City
Council meeting scheduled for August, 2007.
# # # # #
Atti.,~f ~m~nt #
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.
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
b. 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 majority 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
Philip Ashiku, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marie Ulvila, City Clerk
Attachment 4
LISTING OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
Parks, Recreation and Golf Commission
(4 seats open)
1. Mr. Jonah Freedman
2. Ms. Chamise Cubbison
3. Mr. Don Rones
4. Mr. Alex Goeken
Airport Commission
(2 seats open)
1. Dottie Deerwester (incumbent)
2. Donovan Albright
3. Brian Brodoski
4. Susan B. Jordan
Demolition Permit Review
(I seat open)
No applicants