The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-04-02 PacketCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 April 2, 2008 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. Introduction of new Employee, Jan Haiku Proclamation 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Special Joint Council/UVSD Minutes of 8/6/07 b. Regular Minutes of March 19, 2008 8. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make fndings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Rejection of Claim for Damages Received from Kari Kae Hackett and Referral to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund b. Award Purchase of Liquid Polyacrylamide Emulsion to Nalco at a Unit Price of $0.91 Per Pound for an Approximate Total Amount of $27,300.00 Plus Tax. c. Purchase of Mailing/Return Remittance Envelopes for Utility Billing Statements from Systems Distributores Network Inc. in the Amount of $5,114.46 d. Resolution Approving the Disaster Mitigation Act 2000 (DMA 2000) Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Appendix K for the City of Ukiah e. Report of the Acquisition of Professional Services from Rau & Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $9,274 for Preparation of Legal Descriptions and Plats for the Orchard Avenue Bridge Project f. Notification to Council of Payment to AV Integration for Upgrade of the City Council Chamber Camera System in the Amount of $5,102.60 g. Notification to the City Council on Expenditure in the Amount of $7,860.36to F.O.D. Control Corp. for the Acquisition of the Fodboss Sweeper Assembly 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM) a. Introduction of Ordinance Amendment No. 07-33, Amending Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 3, Chapter 7 (Signs) and Division 9, Chapter 2 (Zoning) to Allow Temporary A-Frame/ Sandwich Board Signs Within and Outside the Public Right-Of-Way, Other Objects to be Placed Within the Public Right-of-Way, and Minor Sign Code Amendments Regarding Banners and Similar Objects, Murals, Signs on Awnings, Sign Frames, Freeway Logo Signs, Community-Oriented Sign Program, and Other Minor Issues (Continued). 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion and Possible Approval of a Revised Consent to Sale (Transfer Station Contract) and a Revised Assignment and Consent (Waste Collection Contract) 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Set Dates for Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Hearings and Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Goals/Objectives Workshop b. Discussion of Local Preferences in Purchasing and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Same c. Discussion and Direction to Staff Relative to State Ballot Measures 98 and 99 Related to Private Property and Farmland Protection, and Placing Limits on Eminent Domain and Other Matters Related Thereto. 12. COUNCIL REPORTS 13. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 14. CLOSED SESSION -Closed Session may be held at any time during or before the meeting 15. ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that the City needs to be notifed 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order far 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 bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than Dated this 28th day of March, 2008. Linda C. Brown, City Clerk v ITEM NO. 3a DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE, JAN NEWELL The Finance Department is pleased to introduce to Council our new Finance Controller, Jan Newell. The Finance Controller is a new position for the City of Ukiah. Under the general supervision of the Director of Finance, the Finance Controller will manage the billing and collection activities of the City. In addition, the position will research and develop proposals for updating processes and procedures within the city and work on special projects. Sample projects for this position include parking permit and ticket administration incoordination with the Police Department and the parking study; electronic depositing of checks; utility rate change implementation and impacts; credit card acceptance procedures; budget development; and rate studies. Jan is an active Ukiah resident who enjoys jet skiing in her spare time. Jan has worked in a variety of professional positions. Jan comes to the City from the Ukiah Unified School District where she held the position that was referred to by various titles, including Accounting Manager, Budget Manager, and Business Manager. She is married and resides in Redwood Valley. The Finance Department is happy to have Jan as part of our team, and we are pleased to ask you to welcome Jan to her new position with the City of Ukiah. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Welcome Jan Newell to the City of Ukiah ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A itizen Advised: N A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: None APPROVED: City Manager 3b WHEREAS, poetry is elemental to the human psyche, expressed in manydifferent forms from ancient musings through medieval classics and epics to renaissance sonnets and contemporary writings; and WHEREAS, verse has been the basis for early mental gymnastics and the foundation for learning and understanding, expressing the joys and pangs ofhearts and souls, and delighting both young and o[d alike; and WHEREAS, April is celebrated as National Poetry Month throughoat this grand land in cities and towns large and small,• and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah has joined the growing league of Poet Laureate program sponsors to heighten public awareness of the benefits of poetry, underscoring the importance the City places on the arts as an in[egra/ partofe dynamic, healthy, community,• and WHEREAS, Ukiah spelled backward is `haiku'; a Medieval form ofJapanese poetry, which today enjoys world-wide popularity,• and WHEREAS, Haiku does not depend upon rhyme orrhythm, but ratheris three lines with only 17 syllab/es capturing a scene in nature in a way which creates a vivid response in the mind of the reader or listener through brevity and simplicity without extraneous verbiage; and WHEREAS, iris appropriate for Ukiah to hold a Haiku festival to celebrate iu myriad and varied natural characteristics, expand the opportunities for local poetic expression, and exalt in its unique position of reverse spelling with this form of poetry,• and WHEREAS, `S~pring[ime festival dappled city of redwood ukiaHaiku" NOW, THEREFORE, I, Benj Thomas on behalf of City of Ukiah Mayor Douglas Crane, and myfellow City Councilmembers, Phil Baldwin, John McCowen, and Mari Rodin, do hereby proclaim April 2008 as POETRYMONTH IN UKIAH and urge all citizens to attend scheduled poetry readings throughoutour community, to participate in the 'Poem ofthe Day"program at the Ukiah Library, and to enjoythe Sixth Annual ukiaHaiku Festiva/on Sunday, Apri127, 2008, 2:00 p.m. at the Ukiah Conference Center. Dare: April Z, 2008 Douglas F. Crane, Mayor CITY OF UKIAH Sa MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AND UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 August 6, 2007 2:00 p.m. 7. ROLL CALL 2:06:31 PM The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Joint Meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District on October 17, 2007, the notice for which being legally noticed on August 4, 2007. Mayor Rodin called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers present: Thomas, Crane, McCowen, Baldwin, and Mayor Rodin. Absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Horsley, Rick Kennedy, PE, Project Manager, City Clerk Brown. Also present representing the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District were Directors Wattenburger, Delbar, and Crane, and Kristy Furman, Recording Secretary. Public Expression Opened: 2:07 p.m. Judy Hatch commented on her recent sewer bill showing a substantial monthly increase. From a business perspective, she may be forced to close her mobile home park due to the water/sewer increases recently in effect. As a result of the water/sewer increase, the City could stand to lose 38 low income mobile home housing units because she would not be able to afford water/sewer bills at the current new rate of $3,746 a month to subsidize the mobile home park. She understands usagewas based upon January 2006 figures wherein the mobile home had a substantial water leak from the very cold weather that month. She supports coming to some sort of fair and equitable way for commercial establishments to be able to subsist with the rate increases. Jimmie Rickel resides in the G & O Mobile Home Park and even with his C.A.R. E.S. public assistance discount he does not meet the required baseline rate. He recommended review of circumstances where persons living alone having low incomes and/or have medical situations and do no use much water. Janet Mabray, resident manager of Deep Valley Mobile Home Park stated the sewer fees increased from $1,000 to $4,000 per month, which equates to approximately $60 per space where most residents have families and live in a singlewide mobile home. While some of the tenants are retired, most are lower- income, working families. The Deep Valley Mobile Home Park is old meaning the water/sewer lines are also old. It is very costly to upgrade the existing system and repairs are made based on need. She is diligent about monitoring the water lines for exterior water leaks on a monthly basis that occur underground. The installation of individual water meters making each family responsible for their usage is not an option forthe mobile home park according to the water company that services this park unless the park is responsible for reading each meter and billing the tenants accordingly. Therefore, individual billing for sewer is not an option. In her opinion, all reasonable efforts to minimize water usage allowing for a lower sewer bill have been exonerated. The tenants simply cannot afford to pay the increased sewer rates. She asked Council to consider this dilemma as a result of increased sewer rates. Chair ofthe Board Wattenburger and Director Delbarfavor review of flat rate information in conjunction with the new rate structure particularly as it relates to mobile home parks. The issue of water consumption and water leakages and associated waste water while related is a separate issue and needs to be addressed by the respective water districts and the City. The problem with mobile home parks is the tenants are paying the penalty for the lack of appropriate infrastructure improvements because of old and failing systems and this is not fair. This is part of the new rate structure that needs to be addressed and corrected. Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page t Councilmember McCowen stated rate differentials for those people who knowingly allow water leaks to continue should likely be evaluated whereby the owner is penalized rather than the tenant. He supports consideration for rate differentials that are more equitable as follows: • A property owner having four residential units or less on one water meter is charged'/< of the rate structure based on a flat fee per resident unit and the remaining''/a calculated on water consumption. • Five residential units or more have a separate rate structure possibly having one flat fee and the rest calculated on consumption. Public Expression Closed: 227:28 PM 2. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 2a. Discussion of Funding for District Administrative and Governance Expenses Rick Kennedy, PE, Project Manager presented this item and made three corrections/clarifications tothe staff report as follows: 1. Any reference to tax collector auditor is a controller auditor. 2. The statement regarding a job description for the pending general manager for the District included job duties consisting of plan checking and inspection, wherein the RFP written for Mr. Cayler, the duties cited were not specifically stated in the job description, including reference to a 'Registered Civil Engineer' as expressed by the Board so that in the future the registered civil engineer could be the 'District Engineer.' Accordingly for interpretation/clarification purposes, District Ordinances Nos.1 and 12 have not been repealed; Section 1-6 of the current Ordinance No. 12 says unless or until a separate appointment is made, the Director of Public Works for the City shall perform all of the duties of the sewer inspector. Currently, the City Sewer Inspector does perform all the plan checking as well as the field inspections. Wherein most of the provisions of Ordinance No. 1 have been incorporated into Ordinance No 12, reference to 'Manager' in Ordinance No. 1, section 116, states "Manager shall mean the person or persons appointed by the Board to administer and enforce the rules and regulations of the District," and is currently being performed by the Public Utilities Director, who is the current District Manager. Section 113, Inspector, states, "Inspector shall mean the inspector acting for the Board and may be a member of the Board, the Manager, the Engineer or Inspector appointed by the Board or may be an employee of the City pursuant to any agreement for the maintenance and operation of the system by the City." In accordance with the 1995 Participation Agreement, this service is currently being provided by the City via Mr. Rick Sands. Section 111, Engineer, states "Engineer shall mean the Engineer appointed by and acting for the Board and shall be a registered civil engineer." 3. Page 3 of the report indicates the current annual revenue for the special property tax that is managed by the controller auditor is $42,170 rather than $38,000, as indicated in the report. Recommended Action: Discuss the issues and provide direction to Staff for development of the appropriate budget amendments. The District is looking for Council to consider use of Fund 612 for all or part of their expenses because the funds available to them from the 641 Fund and the Special Property Tax Fund on an annual basis is insufficient. There was a discussion about Fund 641 in connection with right-of-way fees: • There have been questions about the intended purpose of Fund 641 relative to which agency should pay the right-of-way fee, wherein payment is based on the fact that the District sewer collection lines run through the City's Maintained Road System. Staff noted the fee is paid by the District members who are within the City and City residents also pay their fair share in the sum of $141,000. Essentially, every user within the City limits pays aright- of-way fee. Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page 2 Public Comment Opened: 3:02:36 I'M Public speaking to the item: John Graff, and Lee Howard. Public Comments Closed: 3:13 p.m. By Consensus of the City Council and UVSD Board for the UVSD to delay recruiting for the District General Manager position allowing time to possibly review the performance of the City Public Utilities Director and develop performance objectives. It was noted if the District decides to move forward, it will be in contact with the City. 2b. Discussion and Possible Action on the Formation of a Joint/City District Ad-Hoc Committee for the Sewer Lateral Program Deputy CEO Paul Cayler presented the item. His directive has been to improve governance issues within the District so that District Board members are better informed. Council/District members discussed the proposed formation of a JoinUCity/County Sewer Lateral Committee. It was recommended a joint City/UVSD meeting be held on August 15, 2007 with Mary Grace Pawson, Winzler & Kelly in attendance Public Comment Opened: 3:54 p.m. Public speaking to the item: Jim Ronco, Mike Johnson, John Graff, and Lee Howard. Public Comment Closed: 4:08 p.m. Councilmember Thomas supports that formation of an Ad Hoc Committee allow for a wide range of interests and that the interests are balanced. Council desires to move forward on the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee. Board Member Delbar recommended the Chair of the District Board work with City staff regarding the formulation of the Committee. 4:10 pm Councilmember McCowen recommended Sandra Liston, Howard Eagan, John Graff, Mike Johnson, and Jim Ronco serve on the committee and leave discretion to the UVSD Board Chair to work with staff to identify other interests that should to be represented, as well as identify who the individuals might be. Councilmember McCowen and District Member Crane agreed to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee. Chair of the Board Wattenburger supports the names referenced above be approved today so they can start moving fonnrard with recommendations. He supports allowing for at least two more members to the committee panel. Councilmember Thomas stated the committee should have a member representing environmental concerns. Councilmember McCowen recommended the District Board work with staff to identify two more members to represent the environmental community and construction trade industry, if this is possible. M/S CranelThomas to recommend Councilmember McCowen serve as the City's representative. Motion carried by an all AYES voice vote. Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page 3 M/S Crane/McCowen to approve the recommended Ad Hoc Committee members. Motion carried by an all AYES voice vote. 2c. Discussion and Possible Direction to Staff Regarding the Cost Participation between the UVSD and the City for the Mattern Property Acquisition 4:16 pm Rick Kennedy, PE, Project Manager presented the item. Recommended Action: 1. Discuss conditions of the counter proposal and reach agreement as to the conditions, or 2. Direct the City Attorney and County Counsel to draft an agreement for the financial participation in the acquisition of the Mattern property for submittal to the UVSD Board and City Council for approval and execution. • On April 25, 2007, the UVSD received a request from City Council that the District participate in the associated cost factors for the Mattern property acquisition to accommodate Phase II of the WWTP expansion project. • The Board responded with a counter proposal and submitted to City Council whereby there have been two subsequent City/Board discussions in this regard. • At these meetings, City Council expressed concern about certain aspects of the counter proposal. Among the concerns expressed was the District's desire to share ownership in the Mattern property, but was not willing to share all of the acquisition costs relevant to mediation and escrow costs and attorney fees. • Councilmember McCowen was of the opinion that as long as the property was being used for the intended purpose, the District and its customers were receiving benefits regardless of how title was held. • City Attorney Rapport has pointed out that sharing ownership of the property to be used as a part of the WWTP conflicts with the Participation Agreement and every agreement between the City and the District going back to 1955, which have consistently provided that title, management, and control of the VWVTP shall remain with the City. He recommended to the Council that if it agreed to share ownership of the Mattern property with the District, the required written agreement should also address management of the property and the terms under which the City could acquire the District's ownership interest in the property upon termination of the Participation Agreement. • City Council expressed that the conditions of the counter proposal be discussed between the City Council and Board members in a joint meeting. The District Board/Council discussed cost participation between the UVSD and City for the Mattern property: • Councilmember McCowen commented the parcel configuration and neighboring property disputes/lawsuit in conjunction with the VWVTP expansion, poor communication between the City and District Board, lack of a City Public Utilities Director are some of the emblematic problems associated with the property acquisition process so far. • Chair of the Board Wattenburger commented the agency, UVSD, was not considered and/or involved until the agreement regarding the property acquisition had already been reached. As a jointly operated system, the UVSD Board should have been more informed about the process whereby the only time the Board participated was when it was time to pay the District's''/z fair share of the property acquisition costs. Therefore, the Board was of the opinion they were not indebted to pay the associated fees connected with the purchase. He agrees with the City Attorney's opinion only on the issue that an agreement shall address the terms under which the City can acquire the District's ownership upon termination of the Participation Agreement. The District desires to be included in all processes in connection with the WWTP expansion where the overall intent is to improve the WWTP system. • Mayor Rodin asked the question whether the District is penalizing the City for not having included them in the acquisition process for not wanting to pay acquisition costs for negotiation/mediation, escrow and attorney fees. • Chair of the Board Wattenburger stated the District is willing to pay 50 percent towards the purchase of the property. It is the Board's contention to work jointly with the City for successful Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page 4 operation of the WWTP. Because the Board was not informed of the process, they did not have financial responsibility thereof. • Mayor Rodin stated many costs were incurred leading up to the purchase of the property. • Councilmember McCowen commented the District had no role in the negotiation proceedings/discussions leading up to the purchase of the property so the District could argue they also have no financial responsibility for purchase of the property. An option the City could take would be not to ask the District to participate in its 50 percent share of the purchase cost, thus retaining ownership. Furthermore, the point at which the land is needed for use by the WWTP the City can bill the District for all costs incurred regarding purchase of the property. • Director Delbar has no documentation/knowledge the property acquisition was necessary. However, since the City has gone as far as it has, the property is likely necessary wherein the District was not part of the discussion. • Mayor Rodin stated the City can document all costs for the District to review to ensure all costs incurred are justified. • Councilmember Crane stated when Council was confronted with the Matterns not being willing to relinquish the land, he understood the intent of the acquisition was to benefit the City for future use because the land was valuable/necessary for future WWTP expansion and did not take into consideration that the acquisition would be from joint funds. He was looking at the matter from the City's point of view rather than a joint undertaking that the problem of acquisitioning of property was a potential asset that affected the future of the City. At the time, he had no knowledge that Fund 612 was involved. When the matter finally came forward at the District level, he and the District were surprised funding would come from account 612. • Councilmember Thomas inquired regarding the most effective approach to 'repairing' the relationship between the City Council and the District Board in this regard. • Councilmember Baldwin addressed the matter of City Council accepting the District as co-owner of the newly acquired property and waiving the financial responsibility forthe extra fees incurred and moving forward, and questioned the use of the term 'we' by the District members as relating to County government or the County when approximately 95 percent of County are City sewer constituents. • Councilmember McCowen would be willing to forego the Board having to pay the acquisition costs since the bigger issue is how will the City and the UVSD hold title and/or provide assurances that the District will not be disadvantaged and that its interest will be protected and that it will receive any future share of value based on the ownership of the land. He supports coming up with an equitable solution/mechanism that assures the UVSD will receive value for the land regardless of what the future disposition may be and that the proportioned District share will be protected by putting the UVSD on the title. • Chair of the Board Wattenburger concurred with Councilmember McCowen's statement. • Director Crane stated if the City is the only agency holding title, as is the WWTP, the City Attorney's original suggestion concerning the District's interest concerning whatever disposition was that all part of the parcel revenue generated accordingly would go into Fund 612. If the title is held in both names, ie., City and UVSD, there is a need to develop a set of rules for the disengagement of portions of that parcel, in the event the parcel will have other applications as opposed to exclusive use for WWTP purposes. He supports formulating an agreement for the financial participation relative to the Mattern Property. • Director Delbar stated his role/responsibility is to represent the rate payers and would support formulating an agreement if it means that the best interests of the rate payers are protected. By Consensus City Council and UVSD Board supported Recommended Action 2. Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council 8 Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page 5 2d. Presentation and Possible Discussion of Revised Equipment Schedules for Equipment Used in the Operation and Maintenance of the Combined Sewer Collection System and the WWTP Rick Kennedy, PE, Project Manager presented the item. This matter is being reviewed at the request of Chair of the Board Wattenburger relative to modification of the equipment list concerning equipment operated by the City water/sewer maintenance crews and the WWTP. The intent of the modification request is to ascertain better descriptions of the associated fund account numbers so that City Departments can be charged appropriately. Recommended action: Receive the Revised Equipment Schedules. Chair of the Board Wattenburger addressed his request, and for the list to continue as additional equipment is acquired. He supports the fleet schedule formulated by staff for the City Water/Sewer Maintenance Department and the WWTP, as provided for in Attachments 1 and 2 of the staff report for this agenda item. Councilmember McCowen recommended including the relative fund numbers underthe description of the fund account for clarification purposes. Also, the list would reflect changes in the event an item of equipment is disposed of. The City Council received the report. 3. OTHER BUSINESS 4:48:14 PM 3a. Set the next Joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District City Manager Horsley recommended e-mailing Councilmembers and Board Members regarding setting a City Council/UVSD joint meeting. It was noted the Ad Hoc Committee meeting will meet Wednesday, August 15, 2007 with consultant Mary Grace Pawson attending. There was discussion about setting a meeting regarding the selection of a consultant for the 'SSMP' in advance of the regular City Council meeting on August 15, 2007. 4. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING There being no further business, Mayor Rodin adjourned the meeting for City Council at 4:50:13 PM. Linda Brown, Deputy City Clerk Cathy Elawadly, Transcriptionist Minutes of Special Joint Meeting August 6, 2007 Ukiah City Council & Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Page 6 CITY OF UKIAH Sb CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 March 19, 2008 6:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL6:05:10 PM Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on March 19, 2008, ~e.notice for which being legally noticed on, March 14, 2008. Mayor Crane called the meeting to order-at 6:05 pm. Roll was taken with the following Councilmembers present: McCowen, Rodin, in, and Mayor Crane. Councilmembers absent: Thomas. Staff present<.:-,, Interim City Mier Thompson, City Attorney Rapport, Director of Community & GeneraE Services Sangiacomo,-Community Services Supervisor Merz, Senior Planner Townsend, Director of Planning and Community Development Stump, Finance Director Elton, Risk Managed alt, Budget Officer Goodrick, Project and Grant Administrator Mills, Administrative Secretary bavis, Executive Assistant & City Clerk Brown, and Deputy City Clerk Currie. Consultants present: Ralph i~ndersen & Associates via conference call. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PI a. b. 4. P 5. A a. b. c. d. e. Introduction of Amanda Davis, Adn Department 6:06:20 PM Executive Assisti~ttlCty Clerk Brown" Introducff©n•;of New ~fgployee Guy Community Joint 5(07 Regular#~ of 2/20/08 Regular MrrUtes of 3/5/08 IUNJ '' Secretary'Administrative Support Davis, Administrative Secretary. Guy Mills, Project and Grant Minutes of 10/17/07 is Commission Minutes of 2/12/08 M/S Rodin/McCowen to approve the Special Joint Council/UVSD Minutes of 10/17/07, Special Joint Council/Planning Commission Minutes of 2/12/08, Regular Minutes of 8/15/07, 2/20/08, and 3/5/08, as submitted. Motion carried by an all AYES voice vote of the members present. 6. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION 7 8. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR6:11:11 PM Councilmember Baldwin requested Consent Calendar item 7e be withdrawn. M/S Baldwin/McCowen to approve the Consent Calendar items 7a through 7d: a. Report of Disbursements for the Month of February 2008 b. Assignment of Additional Alternate Commissioner for the Northern California Power Agency Commission c. Report of the Acquisition of Storm Drain Pipe from Groeniger & Co in the Amount of $7086.72 d. Award Contract of Annual Visual & Infrared Inspection on Citytsfi)kiah's 115 KV Transmission Line Beginning at Pacific Gas & Electric's Sukjsfation on Babcock Lane and Terminating at the City's Substation on the Southeast Corrierc~f Gobbi Street and South Orchard Avenue in an Amount Not to Exceed $21,30+3 e. Rar~c-Faei{ity MOVED to New Business 11.b Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYIrS: Councilmembers Thomas, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Crane. NOES: None ABSEft`: Councilmember Thomas. ABA FAIN: None AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA 1 ~:.~3:19 PM None. PUBLIC HEARINGS (6:15 PM16:14;~9 ~'M a. Introduction of Ordinance AmBrt ;~lo. 07-33, Amar~tling' Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 3 Cha ter 7 Si ns anE# Diviffi" ~ . Cha ter 2 2~fiin to Allow Tem ora A- , p ( 9 ) r0t~~. ;, p (, a 9) P rY Frame/ Sandwich Board Signs Within and de the Public Right-Of-Way, Other Objects to be Placed Within the Public;Ffi`ght-Ot"~Nay, and Minor Sign Code Amendmentffi ~~ „ng Banners ~tid Similar Ob;~ects, Murals, Signs on Awnings, E a a -, Sign Frarn, Freew~raogo Signs, Gspmmunity-Oriented Sign Program, and Other Minor IssuBS (Continiid from 1/16/08,. Publlc,Hearing Opened: 6:34 pm Public speaking fb the item: John Graff and Judy Pruden. Public Haal4ttg Closed: 6:43 pm board signs l8xjn and the public right-of-way, other objects to be placed within the public right-of-; and minor'sign code amendments regarding banners and similar flbjeets, signs on s3wnings,; Sign frames, freeway logo signs, community-oriented sign program, and oth~tC minor issues; and (3) continue final adoption to date certain. Senior Planner`Townsandarid Director of!Planning and Community Development Stump ,.. presented the it~it€t. comiYl~t5~x1-,tit5n: (1) Conduct a public hearing; (2) introduce prap-flcdinanceAmendment fVo;'07-33, amending Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 3, Chapter ~~ns) and rsion 9, Chapter 2 (zoning) to allow temporary a-frame/sandwich By Consensus, City Council continued the item to the Regular City Council Meeting of April 2, 2008, and directed staff to: (1) give various options for section 3225K for example an alternative that does not allow gas-filled figures or limits them to grand openings, reduce the allowed time to advertise business openings, reduce the time to 30 days total per year for advertising special activities or promotions; (2) research costs of issuing banner permits and add appropriate fees; (3) investigate requiring the date a permitted object is to be removed be printed on the object; and (4) thoroughly explore all liability issues. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Receive Status Report Concerning Code Compliance Activities6:55:08 PM Director of Planning and Community Development Stump presented the Item. Recommended Action: Receive Report. Public Comment Opened 7:01 pm Public speaking to the item: Lisa Mammina, Leslie Batz, Susan Billy, and Joy Beeler. Public Comment Glosed 7:16 pm By Consensus, City Council directed the Code Compliance St3bCommittee to meet with the code compliance officer regarding the three step-complian :C process and report back to Council and consider providing examples of blade signs~r sign ideas as alternatives to A-frame signs on the City's website andlor informatioh at Cdlty Nall b. Discussion and Possible Action to Appoint Item discussed in Closed Session, item M/S Rodin/McCowen to appointed Jane CCf~i7a May 12, 2008, and authorized the Mayor tt~%. following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembe Crane. NOES: None. ABSENT;., Councilmember Councilmember McCowen ni for the final interviews and Councilmembers. 11 the following action: Hers as fhe City Manager of'Ukiah starting 3itjn the contract. Motion carried by the °Cowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Thttftas. ABSTAIN: None. that Counc)lmember Thomas was present was the i~ahimous selection of all five NEW BUSINESS a. Approval o~Fiscal`~~,2007/2008 M~rear Budget Amendment6:16:22 PM Risk Ntanagi~,rand Budge Officer GoodriclCaru! Director of Finance Elton presented the item. Recommenddd motion; ;~oue the Sumrry of Proposed Mid-Year Budget Amendments for FiscaLYear 2007 ~ and' ~~e~e~se of Fund Balances to offset the unanticipated ... increases to expenses and revenuo `tortfal Is. M/S Rodin in to appt~ve the Recommended Action. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: {~~: Counoi€)niismbers McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Crane. NOES: .None. ABSENT- Gounc~lmefnber Thomas. ABSTAIN: None. C'~tjt Council direCt~d Interim City Manager Thompson to discuss with staff the request to becjir# making ad(ustments prior to the close of fiscal year in order to increase the ending b. Status Report to the City Council Regarding the Development of the County's Low Gap Dog Park Facility (was item 7e) 6:28:35 PM Director of Community & General Services Sangiacomo presented the item. Recommended Action: Accept the status report on the Low Gap Dog Park. By Consensus, the City Council accepted the report. Recessed to Closed Session 7:34 pm 14. CLOSED SESSION -Closed Session may be held at any time during or before the meeting c. Public Emplovee Appointment (& 54957) Title of Position to be Filled: City Manager The Recruiting Firm Ralph Andersen & Associates, will Participate in a Conference Call from 5800 Stanford Ranch Rd., Suite 410, Rocklin, CA 95765, (916)630-4900. Reconvened in Open Session at 6:15 pm; see item 10b for reportable action on item 14c. 12. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Baldwin stated the Army Corps of Engineers reported on the proposal of the Sonoma County Water Agency, which happened at the Inland W~fdr and Power Commission meeting. Councilmember McCowen asked if Councilmember Rodi» would work with Councilmember Baldwin on the Measure B forum due to his strong advocacy for Yes Lift ~. Councilmember Rodin accepted. Mayor Crane reported that the Ad Hoc Fire Integc~ion Study Committee continues to work on the integration processes and the boundary drop c- "'` 13. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS None. Recessed to Ukiah Redevelopment Reconvened to City Council 8:41 pm Recessed to Closed Session 8,42 pm 14. CLOSED SESSJ a. Conferer Property: ~ Negotiator: Negutiatinc b. C`ortf~t~t~di Propertv: a Agency Nec Negotiating .Under negc Reconvened if1'Qpen 5 15. ADJOURNME There being no flt'1 - Cloi~f-Session may~Yae held at any time during or before the meeting h Real bpertv Negotiatiirs (§ 54956.8); X56-242, 03, 06, 07, O jF;~tJfciah); ~T#torrrk, 4t~~.rim City ftAanager; tres;~ity oi°~" """ ~~r~~wid Hull/Ric Piffero; 3-582`=04 and -08, 03-582-28 through -34, and 003-181-34 and -35; Mike; ~: Ceja, perty owners; Price and terms of payment at 9:32 am with no reportable action for 14a and 14b. business, the meeting adjourned at 9:33 pm. JoAnne M. Currie, Deputy City Clerk ITEM NO. 7a MEETING DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED FROM KART KAE RACKETY AND REFERRAL TO JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND A claim from Kari Kae Hackett was received by the City of Ukiah on March 5, 2008 alleging emotional and physical stress due to negligent supervision of city employees for an incident that occurred on September 6, 2007 in Lakeport, California. Pursuant to City policy, it is recommended the City Council reject this claim and refer it the Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject claim for damages received from Kari Kae Hackett and refer it to the Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by the City's Risk Manager. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Sue Goodrick, Risk ManagerJBudget Officer Prepared by: Sue Goodrick, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: 1. Claim of Kari Kae Hackett, pages 1 - 4 APPROVED: `~ % l~ ~~ Pat~Thompson, Interim City Manager ' o: File With: City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 ~ ~ c.~ ~ <' A-raa~~ ~~~~~~ ~\S' ~ f'\G p`ti'T CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH of p ~~~~~C MAR 5 2008 A claim must be presented, as prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California, by the claimant or a person acting on his/her behalf and shall show the following: If additional space is needed to provide your information, please attach sheets, identifying the paragraph(s) being answered. Name and Post Office address of the Claimant: Name of Claimant: Q' Post Office Address: ~ {~ (.+~~'r0. r- , Lr: ~ o r•+ A X 4 5 3 2. Post Office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent: Name of Addressee: ~ Tele hone: ~ Post Office Address: ~' ~ ~ a, u ~ i_a+..~ ~ e-2 P ~~ ~ - ~g ~] - 9d S~ CcLL C`G„tJe~Sc-liZh.S o- c+~~rFt ~, 1G n jV hP ~ea.-j- "I'D /r12 ~f4 ~ 3. The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted. Date of Occurrence: S,pP.~~b pr,, h~' ~ OD `~ Time of Occurrence: q pp~~ I D ' lSArvt Location: 1..~.KL'Pv,~d' c q Circumstances giving rise to this claim: // ,, `` I JIS 5'fc_f ;l ia1 ~ZJJ ~rc />c1-,., < ~ 1`/~Y'~ ice' n ~ K'c~I IJ a -i~.e C; jy~ ur,A H 4. General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim. d)5 S-'zrfz'd i n }LJc~ ~reJ~y~iC' ~~t-lea'C 5. The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. ~~o+~,r~ -r,z~,,; rA~rL~ ~. UonI AL[~ ~A(,L~~ Attuc.f~ment # ; RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP CLAIM NO Page 1 of 3 Revised 12/2006 6. If amount claimed totals less than $10,000: The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date tSf presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. Amount Claimed and bgsis for computation: If amount claimed exceeds $10,000: If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shah indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. A limited civil case is one where the recovery sought, exclusive of attorney fees, interest and court costs does not exceed $25,000. An unlimited civil case is one in which the recovery sought is more than $25,000. (See CCP § 86. ) Limited Civil Case Unlimited Civil Case You are required to provide the Information requested above, plus your signature on page 3 of this form, in order to comply with Government Code §910. In addition, in order to conduct a timely investigation and possible resolution of your claim, the city requests that you answer the following questions. Claimant(s) Date(s) of Birth: 8. Name, address and telephone number of any witnesses to the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted: `~~h~r~., l-,,~c~e+-h qJ-~rr~ ~r• L~Y.~pasif~f~ `31 rfS3 7u7-ab 3-'-!y~ 9. If the claim involves medical treatment for a claimed injury, please provide the name, address and telephone number of any doctors or hospitals providing treatment: ~,-l ~ h n M a ~1,~ X150 1-J-r 1 1 Ro! ~ A S r $u r ~ ~s E Lpi<epur~-I~ eg q~""4S3 ~~7' ab3-5`360 ui{~ar dnr,3man~S fe ~l~~sti.l ~,.tith ~e~c.~ C~:Inct(. if applicable, please attach any medical bills or reports or similar documents supporting your claim 10. If the claim relates to an automobile accident: Claimant(s) Auto Ins. Co.: Telephone: Address: Insurance Policy No.: Insurance Broker/Agent: Telephone: Address: Claimant's Veh. Lic. No.: Vehicle MakefYear: Claimant's Drivers Lic. No.: Expiration: If applicable, please attach any repair bills, estimates or similar documents supporting your claim. Page 2 of 3 Revised 12/2006 READ C For all accident claims, place on following diagram name of streets, including North, East, South, and West; indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house riumbers or distances to street corners. If /Agency Vehicle was involved, designate by letter "A" location of /Agency Vehicle when you first saw it, and by "B" location of yourself or your vehicle when you first saw AREFULLY !Agency Vehicle; location of /Agency vehicle at lime of accident by "A•1" and location of yourself or your vehicle at the time of the accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X." NOTE: If diagrams below do not fit the situation, attach hereto a proper diagram signed by claimant. SIDEWALK CURB CURB Z PARKWAY SIDEWALK 7 Warning: Presentation of a false claim with the intent to defraud is a felony (Penal Code §72). Pursuant to CCP §1038, the !Agency may seek to recover all costs of defense in the event an action is filed which is later determined not to have been brought in good faith and with reasonable cause. Signature: Date: Page 3 of 3 Revised 12/2006 C.. C~j~ C't;c~tnc~~l R i-,at i F CAF-y/~la~~«~la' car--.j ~4-H~r~> Jeffrey N. Daly R , s!< 0-F~ c e y Attorney at Law California State Bar Number 59034/ jdalylaw@aol.com Post Office Box 246 Hidden Valley Lake CA 95467 (707) 987-9082 fax 0982 I~ W MAR 3 20Qg February 29, 2008 Ukiah City Council 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA 95453 Re: Mrs. Kari Hackett CLAIM FOR DAMAGES/ GOVERNMENT CODE NOTICE Dear Members of the City Council of Ukiah, I represent Mrs. Kari Hackett. As is more detailed in the enclosed copy of her letter to you of February 28, and her earlier letter to you, both of which I incorporate herein by reference, she suffered damages in excess of $10,000 as a result of the way she was treated by one or more of your employees, and/or as a result of the City's own failure to establish policies earlier so that such an incident would never have happened. The jurisdiction for this matter will be the Mendocino County Superior Court. Please direct all correspondence to me. I look forward to working with your counsel in this matter. Very trul yCyo~,u^,rs~ ,) J ~D '-' ITEM NO: 7b MEETING DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD PURCHASE OF LIQUID POLYACRYLAMIDE EMULSION TO NALCO AT A UNIT PRICE OF $0.91 PER POUND FOR AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $27,300.00 PLUS TAX. Submitted for the City Council's consideration and action is Staffs recommendation that the purchase of approximately 30,000 pounds of liquid polyacrylamide emulsion be awarded to Nalco in the amount of $0.91 per pound for an approximate total amount of $27,300.00. The polymer product will be applied at the plant's secondary clarifiers to enhance solids settleability. Application of the subject product will support continued efforts to comply with discharge permit conditions and requirements. The application of polymer product at this point in the treatment process is also expected to reduce downstream chemical consumption, which will result in corresponding cost savings. Plant staff procured and conducted a temporary pilot test of the subject polymer product type between February and March of this year and observed positive results. Subsequent to the pilot test, plant staff invited vendors to bid on the product type to ensure that the facility received the best possible pricing. Bids for the subject polymer product were received from a total of three (3) companies. Nalco was the apparent low bidder. Please refer to the bid summary table below for a complete listing of the bid amounts. Company Unit Price EXTENDED 1) Nalco $0.91 per Ib. $27,300.00 plus tax 2) Polydyne, Inc. $1.035 per Ib. $31,050.00 plus tax 3) Ciba Specialty $1.20 per Ib. $36,000.00 plus tax RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award purchase of approximately 30,000 pounds of liquid polyacrylamide emulsion for a one year period to Nalco at the unit price of $0.91 per pound, for an approximate total of $27,300.00 plus tax. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS: Reject all bids and provide direction to FUNDING: Amount Budoeted $27,300.00 From Acct No. 612.3580.520.000 Additional Funds Requested N/A Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: Jesse Pagliaro, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor Prepared by: Jesse Pagliaro, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor Coordinated with: Mary Horger, Purchasing Supervisor; Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: 1 -Bid Tabulation __ ~ Approved:` - "~ ~~~ '" Pat Thompson, Interim City anager ATTACHMENT ~ C.~~ O,~ 1.1~.~13f 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 BID TABULATION March 20, 2008 BID OPENING Liquid Polymer - Polyacrylamide Emulsion (Approximately 30,000 pounds) COMPANY 1. Ciba Specialty PO Box 820 Suffolk, VA 23439-0820 3. Nalco Company 1601 West Diehl Road Naperville, IL 60563-1198 4. Polydyne, Inc. PO Box 279 Riceboro, GA 31321-0279 UNIT PRICE $1.20 per pound $0.91 per pound $1.035 per pound Please note: these bids were sent to seven (7) chemical companies total. ITEM NO: 7~ MEETING DATE: April 2 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF MAILING/RETURN REMITTANCE ENVELOPES FOR UTILITY BILLING STATEMENTS FROM SYSTEMS DISTRIBUTORES NETWORK INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,114.46 In compliance with Section 1522 of the Municipal Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the purchase of supplies costing more than $5,000.00 but less than $10,000.00. Billing/Collections worked with the Purchasing Department to obtain quotes for "mailing' and "remittance" envelopes. Bids were requested from seven (7) vendors with four (4) responding (Attachment 1). The lowest bid came from Systems Distributors in the amount of $5,114.46. Funds were budgeted and available from account number 697.1350.690.000. Mailing envelopes are used weekly by the Billing/Collection Department to mail out utility statements. The statements are mailed with a return remittance envelope. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report of the purchase of envelopes from Systems Distributors Network Inc. from account #697.1305.690.000 in the amount of $5114.46 as budgeted for FY 2007/2008. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS: FUNDING: Amount Budgeted $5,114.46 Account Number 697.1305.690.000 Additional Funds Requested -0- Citizens Advised: NIA Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Jan Newell-Finance Controller; Kay McLellan Utility Customer Service Team Leader Coordinated with: Pat Thompson -Interim City Manager Attachments: 1 -List of vendors providing bids Approve at Thompson, In erim City Manager ATTACHMENT1 PUBLIC UTILITIES ENVELOPES Requisition E25846/E25847 BIDDER AMOUNT Systems Distributors Network, Inc. (SDN, Inc.) $5,155.84 Bay Side Printed Products $5,663.34 Discount Envelope Supply $6,487.50 American Solutions for Business $5,301.30 Mountain Valley Printing NO BID Alexander Clark Printing NO BID ITEM NO: ~a MEETING DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT 2000 (DMA 2000) MENDOCINO COUNTY MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN INCLUDING APPENDIX K FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH BACKGROUND: In 2000, the United States Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) to emphasize the need for mitigation planning to reduce vulnerability to natural and human-caused hazards. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). This plan includes Community Descriptions, a Planning Process, Hazard Analysis, Vulnerability Analysis, Mitigation Strategy and Plan Maintenance. These areas are both Countywide and specific to local jurisdictions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires any local jurisdiction requesting post-disaster funds to have an approved hazard mitigation plan in place. This plan fulfills all of the requirements set by FEMA for post-disaster funding. Continued on page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Resolution Adopting the Mendocino County Hazard Mitigation Plan Including Appendix K for the City of Ukiah ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL OPTIONS: Do Not Approve Resolution and Refer Back to Staff. FUNDING: No direct fiscal impact. Approval of plan will allow the City of Ukiah to receive federal funds for hazard mitigation, grants, and pre/post disaster funding. Citizens Advised: Requested by: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Prepared by: Harold Ritter, Interim Fire Chief Coordinated with: Charlie Stump, Director of Planning Attachments: 1 -Resolution 2 -Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan -Appendix K (City of Ukiah) Thompson, Interim City Manager Page 2 In addition to the DMA 2000 requirements, the plan also addresses the Local Flood Mitigation Plan requirements of the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant program. In June of 2007, the County of Mendocino Office of Emergency Services' (Bill Woodworth) formed an advisory body, referred to as the Task Force, to begin the process of developing the Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP). The Task Force consisted of representatives from Mendocino County, the cities of Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits, Point Arena, and representatives from non governmental organizations identified in Section 4 of the plan. A consultant (USR Corporation) was also utilized to assist in the preparation the MHMP. Each jurisdiction participating in the preparation of the plan provided input to the consultant specific to its jurisdiction. Public input was also solicited as a part of the planning process. The plan presented for approval meets all of the DMA 2000 requirements as well as the FMA grant program requirements pursuant to Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, and the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenaur Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. Currently five FEMA grant programs provide funding to States, Tribes, and local entities that have a FEMA approved State or Local Mitigation Plan and to local entities that have a FEMA approved Local Mitigation Plan with a flood annex or a stand-alone Flood Mitigation Plan. The plan presented was adopted by Mendocino County on January 15, 2008, and approved by FEMA on January 31, 2008. For the City of Ukiah to also be eligible for funding, it must also adopt the plan by resolution and forward the signed resolution to FEMA. There is an update requirement that ensures the MHMP will be updated at least every five years. The MHMP will work as a companion plan to the City of Ukiah's Emergency Operations Plan which also requires pre-planning, response and post emergency recovery. Special attention should be paid to Table K-9 Mitigation Action Plan Matrix, on pages K-14, K-15 and K-16. These are items the City will need to work on. The entire 200+ page document is available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. A copy can also be provided upon request in either hard copy or electronic format. Appendix K is provided in its entirety. ATTACHMENT ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2008- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH APPROVING THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT 2000 (DMA 2000) MENDOCINO COUNTY MULTI- HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN INCLUDING APPENDIX K FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH WHEREAS, a County wide Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team drafted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for Mendocino County and all the Cities therein; and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah was represented in the planning process and Appendix K contains the City's individual information; and WHEREAS, Mendocino County is a local unit of government that has afforded the citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input in the Plan and actions in the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Ukiah City Council agrees to abide by the Disaster Mitigation Act 2000 guidance and grant guidelines and the Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the plan entitled "Mendocino County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan" including Appendix K for the City of Ukiah is formally adopted as our hazard mitigation plan and road map to a more disaster resistant community. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 2008, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Linda Brown, City Clerk Douglas F. Crane, Mayor ATTACHMENT_~_ Appendix K City Of Ukiah Appendix K City of Ukiah Table K-1 City of Ukiah Estimated Population and Building Inventory Po ulation Residential Buildin s Nonresidential Buildin s 2000 Census Estimated 2005 Census Total Building Count Total Value of Buildin s $ ~ Total Building Count Total Value of Buildin s $ a 15,497 15,463 4,327 810,724,000 104 265,078,000 Sources: FEMA HAZUS-MH, Version 2006, and U.S. Census 2000. Average insured structuml value of all residential buildings, (including single-family dwellings, mobile homes, etc.) is $187,000 per stmcture. ZAveraged insured structural value of all nonresidential buildings (including industry, trade, professional and technical services, etc.) is $2,549,000. Table K-2 City of Ukiah Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Name /Number Address Value Civic Center 300 Seminar Ave. 6,659,000 Employment and Family Assistance Services, Adult 737 S. State St. 1,18Q000 Government Services Family and Children's Services, Child Protective 727 S. State St. 1,180,000 Services Ukiah Fire De artment 300 Semin Ave. 708,000 Emer enc Re n Ukiah Police De artment 300 Semina Ave. 1,652,000 g y spo se Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District 1500 S. State St. 708,000 Educational Vest Hills Juvenile Hall 2240 Eastside Rd. 590 000 School , Nokomis Elementary School 495 Washington S[. 590,000 St. Mary of the Angels School 991 S. Dora St. 590,000 Yokayo Elementary School 790 S. Dora St. 590,000 River Oak Charter School 555 Leslie St 590,000 Oak Manor Elementary School 400 Oak Manor Dr. 590,000 New Morning Montessori School 656 South Orchard Ave. 590,000 South Valle Hi h School 445 S. Dora St. 590,000 New Ho e School 225 S. Ho a St. 590,000 Pomolita Middle School 740 N. S rin s St. 590,000 jJ~\\COU-SRV03\SHARED\ADMINISTRATION\AGENDAS & ASRS\APR 2 REGULAR AGENDA\ASRMULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.DOC\26-MAR-08\\ K-1 Appendix K City of Ukiah Table K-2 City of Ukiah Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Name /Number Address Value' Frank Zeek Elementary School 1060 N. Bush St. 590,000 Ukiah Hi h School 1000 Low Ga Rd. 590,000 Woodlands Charter School 3801 Low Ga Rd. 590,000 Calpella Elementary School 151 Moore St. 590,000 Care Ukiah Valley Medical 275 Hospital Drive 8 260 000 Center , , Giorno Park / Anton Stadium 506 Park Blvd. 237,238 Todd Grove Park 600 Live Oak 237,238 Ukiah Softball Com lex River Rd. Exit 237,238 Oak Manor Park 500 Oak Manor Dr. 237,238 Community Vinewood Park 1260 Elm St. 237,238 Grace Hudson Museum and Sun House 431 So. Main St. 1,219,578 Ukiah Municipal Golf Course 599 Pazk Blvd. NA Low Ga Park Low Ga Rd. 237,238 State and Federal Hi hwa s 5.35 --- 27,810,664 Railroads 5.34 --- 7,397,523 Brid es 10 --- 14,324,680 Rail Facilit 711 E. Perkins St. 25,724,000 Ground and Air Facilities Ukiah Munici al Ai ort 1 M south of Ukiah 6 431 000 KPRA Channel 208 NA 118,000 KUKI-FM Channe1277 NA 118,000 City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant 300 Plant Rd. 78,588,000 Utilities AT&T Central Switch 305 West Stevenson 118 000 Station , Electric Substation S. Orchard 10,0000 H dro Generation Plant Lake Mendocino Dr. 129,800,000 Williams Communication Inc. NA 118,000 Sources: FEMA HAZUS-MH, local jurisdictions. Estimated and/or insured structural value for critical facilities and estimated values for critical infrastructure. NA =Not Available. u~\\COU-SRV03\SHARED\ADMINISTRATION\AGENDAS & ASRS\APR 2 REGULAR AGENDA\ASRMULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.DOC\26-MAR-08\\ K-2 a~ k .Y Q '~ y w ¢, o Q U C .~ oa b C O r d QI 3 v .; L d y a d s, 7 O d K W b L R N CQ x C O W W ..r O w U M x v R H v 0 O ~ ~ O O O ~ O ~ D O O o 00 ° 0o ° ° 00 O ° vi ? ° O ° = N N ~ '- ~ O ° ~ p ~n a i oo ~ ~ O a ~ o O N o , . ~ ~ ~ W ~° ~ N v~l \° ~ N ~ ~ °M M y N N N N N N N L __ ~ ` o 0 z d g ~ o 0 o v c~ ~ o o N o o M ° oo ~ ~ '- o , ,~ ,~ z e 9 . ~ ~ V O O ~ C o 00 O H O O O O ~ O ~ O _ O O O C O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ° O o h O b 7 7 b ~ m V N ~ V CO M ^ M 00 M ~ M ~ 1~ N M 1~ N O v 9 . ~ a ` a N 0 0 00 ~ ~ ° °~ E d o c n o 0 0 v c\ o o c N a o N z a ~° rn o ~ '~ ^ n _ `C ^ ~ e ~ ^ v°ii ~ E N O V O O N 7 y~ '" -' ^ O M o0 v~ ~ N b z r ~ ~ N W ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ M a ~ C ~ C ~`a W ~ ~ C C °~ w ~ v ~ ~ E C G, G °~ d ~= v= w ~ w u u ~ ~ .v. K ? v b o .% ~ v ° ~e ~ a e e >. a. ~ _ a Z .. _= a ~, m v t t ~ `" v .N ~ v ... w w _ ° . w ° ~ m o o a =° a a o °? h b N e E c v c a v u c w ° ,y z w ~ .a c o o ° ~ °~ ' ° o c _ x E y ~, vi ° ~° v ~° o ~ ° a v L' ~ 3 d L s a+ v ^ G c ~ w ~ N 0 2 3 - on °~' c °~' w C :: ~ '~ w v :: °' °' :: W 9 L ° ` v L° m y tR °' ~ .y 3 L° a d 3 d m 3 u 't t oo , 7, u i a a i o_n co W x ~ ~ ~ O S .~ 4 0 ~ ~~ ~ ..1 O .`C O .a O S .] O S ~ ~ ~ E E w ~ ~ ~ ~ j x ~ ~ ~ a c W ~ ~ ~ F .y Y ap U '0 _ ~' ~ _ w 9 W L p O ° ~ b G C ~ ` ~ E c w ~' y v b x Q w a .a ~ ~ ~ s 3 A ~ x U y ..~. 0 b ° .~ m .~- U M ~i x~ xX G 4-. ~ Q Q+ >~ ~ U ~C v R H o ~ ~ ~ o = ~ ° 0 o r o cn o 00 ~ ~ vi ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ M o o 0 ~0 0 0 o0 iD 0 0 y 'p `A ~O ~p P V ip M N ~ V ~ ~ E > - N N ~. N E 0 V p z M O 00 O O N M oa O O O N O O N ~O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 d p o ~D 0 0 ~D 0 0 0 0 ~D 0 0 ~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~O 0 0 b 0 0 ~ W N N N N N N L W '~ W W W W W W V z -- o - o 0 0 0 .- 0 0 0 0 0 .- o -- 0 0 ~'~ o o ° 0 0 ° 0 o c o 0 . . o o ° o ° ~ ;~ v p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 W 0 00 0 0 p O ~p r N q P b T O i vi ~ O - W ~ N [~ ~ N M ~ t~ u _ 9 Gz7 z M 0 X 0 0 ~n O ~' - O O h iD N N O O O O O O O p O O b 0 0 0 0 ~ O O H O O O O O H O 0 0 0 0 0 u d W' O O O O O d p >~ M m M M M pp O V b ~/• 8~ W X z 0 0 M 0 0 0 M O M O O O O M O O M O O :' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 " v m e o ~o o of o 0 0 0: o a 0 0 0 0 0: v o ~o o a o 0 E W M o 0 0 , ~c M o p ' N Oi P O~ ~D N U L 1 > O z N 0 M 0 0 0 M O M O O O O N O M O O C G ,d p) .Q d 1 G Y C b~ L - '~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ L N a 9 O 0. o 9 a ~ L° X ~ ~ . . `. ~ m ~ '~. ~ ' N 4W y ~ .v. m .'J' d ~ N ~ ~ ^ m O G ~ ° c O S p O ? i 7 N ? 00 L d '~ ~ N .~ L .~ a~ ~' ~ v W ~ O O O C C .- F O 9 b b E > C V C m > v C ~ t L A .o q ~ W ° ~~ L ~~ ~ x N ~ p v y ~ ~ O °v ~ o ° ' v E O E c cl ^ a N c~ 3~ ~ t -eOh~ 3 °~' t z c c. C /~ A 0 O' V C V O O J ~ .1 O ~ /~ n . v N x v 5 o ~ a v ~ d v r t ~ ?: L° t t.° ww ~ 3 r 3 ~ 3 r 9 ` x y > O .d o x d a ~ a y O .a .Q x .d O ] .d x O ~ v ~ x n m ~ ~ ~ ~ E o o '~ O ~ . o ~ . ~ j x ~ , a ~ ~ - ~° a A O ~ ° ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ a , F ~ . ~ o _ ~ ~ .~ n ii . 9 ~ ~' t ~ 7> - L ~ w O c ~ N ~ ~ k' b W N U b 'S Q ~ N ~ E- ~ 3 ` 5 x M 0 ~ ~ N d N O G U N W q x~ x~ b~ ~w a~ ~T x 0 x x~ x~ b~ ~w ~o ~T 1r V 0 ~, .~ L W C --i Y :. ~L U ~~ O h ~N _~ b C d 4 O Or x W L N x CC an C d al b W O Y U d H ,~ z z Z z L z z z Z z z z z z Z z z z z y 0 z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d S ~ S o ~ S 0 S 0 S g ~ g ~- , o o ~ o 0 0 0°~0~ N m ~ o o ° - o 0 0 ~ o o ~ ~ o 0 0 d o o - N N r CO W N N ~ z V O r O O - Q N b O O O M O b O O a e: o S 8 ~ 0 8 § S • C ~ o ,~ o o ~ „'^~ 0 0 0 0 o e o ~ X 0 0 ~ N N Vi N N V1 b Vj nl N nt N N a CD z N O N O O N O N O O O O - O - - O O u ~o b o b r~ _ N ~ ~o ~ b o v ~ b M Q r O- d o a rn rv v d m e o~ ~ ~~ ~ O O N O M O r R ~ T N M N ~ O O O O N N O y N V O O ~ ' .,,. Q Q N ~ ~ Q b Q b 4 9 O N ~ r ~- N ~` z O O O O N O~ ~ O O O O ~ O N W O O Y N N V' 01 N V N b O ~ V~ P ~` p- ^R ~ ~n r"e o 0 ~ r:v o 0 a hM o rvN r"v r ~N ~n rv o 0 0 0 0 0 N- o o"rn r a p`r a av~ o 0 r ~ ' .. M m `~' N M m e a r 0 r oo m o . n. N ~ r ~ - - r - r ri v - vi .~ 1' d y O O W W M e1 r1 O O O O N M ? O~ O O l"' v~ O v~ O O O h ~ O O O N ~ O - M O O ~ ~- v~ b ~ ~ b ~ b . . M O r t~ ~ ' b ~+ '^ o ° o o ai ~ ~n ~ 0 0 0 .n o _ ~ r o a W '' ~ N W ~ p W r W ~ ~ ~ b O O 3 a N N Q N N N ~ W P W - `rri y O~ O V O O~ N y ~n R O O O b -+ N O~ O O Q O v~ O O O v~ O v~ O O O ~ N O O O C C y N x 2 ~ ~ ... .X' Y _ ~ ~ w c a . , ` .. `w ~ .. 'o ~o w ~ v y ~ .°'. a '~ v a ~ ~ p w G G C A O 0 `O o 00 ?? A O 'O N b ~ O N C O ~i Y ~+ F C O O N N N V M h ~ O ; N b j ` L Y O v ~c O ~ a N '" v a d ~ 3 ~ G ~ /~ /~ ?. ?. 0 . ~ C E O /~ /~ u 9 O a O x O ~n 0 L° v o o ~ F ~ O .~ S ~ °' c d L C O N N W ~~ WW N N N d L L ` O L b vi L L L _ F 'O ~ Oq v. > N ~ O O ~ O~ ~ N h 0 0 O O O O ~ O O R x v' > ~ x a O n.1 O .Ti r-1 O S ~1 O x ~ ; E E w ~ ~ ~ ~ S V V N O tN H v ~ ~ 9 9 Q, O y A G G N ~ b a U 9 ~ ~ Q w ~, E.., 3 ' ~ a ,7 x~ x~ b~ Gw ~o x 0 Appendix K City of Ukiah Dam Failure The State of California regulates and inventories dams measuring greater than 25 feet in height and retaining back greater than 15 acre-feet of water or those dams that are more than 6 feet in height and retaining greater than 50 acre-feet of water. Inundation maps were developed for larger dams. Critical facilities, infrastructure, and other buildings within the inundation area are considered to be in high hazard area in the event of dam failure. There are 1,755 residential structures (worth $322,050,000), 74 nonresidential buildings (worth 265,078,000), and approximately 7,216 within the inundation area. Several critical facilities are within the inundation area including 2 government facilities (worth $2,360,000), 3 educational facilities (worth $1,770,000), 3 community facilities (worth $1,694,054), 4 utilities (worth $218,860,000), 2 G&A facilities (worth $32,155,000), 10 bridges (worth $14,324,680), 5.3 miles of rail (worth $7,397,523.4), and 4.9 miles of highway valued at $25,263,519. There are no dams with a high risk of failure. Earthquake PGA shake maps produced by the USGS show that the entire population, all non-critical facilities, and all critical facilities and infrastructure in Ukiah is located within a severe shaking range (40 to 60 percent acceleration due to gravity). All critical facilities and infrastructure excluding bridges, rail, and highways are worth $282,265,006. There is also 5.4 miles of highway (worth $27,810,664), 5.3 miles of rail (worth $7,397,523.4), and 10 bridges (worth $14,324,680) located in this area. There are 4,327 residences (worth $810,724,000), 104 nonresidential buildings (worth $265,078,000), and approximately 15,497 people located in this severe shaking range also. Flood According to the FIRM, last updated for Ukiah in August 1985, 0.2 mile of highway (worth $1,039,651), 0.8 mile ofrailroad (worth $1,122,096.2), two bridges (valued at $2,864,936), the wastewater treatment plant (worth $78,588,000), I rail facility (worth $25,724,000), Oak Manor Elementary School (worth $590,000), and 2 community facilities including the Oak Manor Park and the Ukiah Softball Complex (worth $474,476) are within the 100-year floodplain. There are 601 residential buildings valued at $97,273,000, 7 nonresidential buildings worth $17,898,000, and approximately 2,241 people within the 100-year floodplain. Facilities, utilities, and other buildings within the 100-year floodplain have a 1 percent probability of occurrence in any given year and are considered to be at high risk of flooding. A moderate risk is assigned to facilities, utilities, and other buildings within the 500-year floodplain. Within in this moderate risk area, there is 0.9 mile of highway (worth $4,480,499), 0.8 mile of railroad (worth $1,135,949.3), and 3 bridges (valued at $4,297,404). There are also 202 residences (worth $38,176,000), 4 nonresidential buildings (worth $11,550,000), and approximately 800 people in an area with moderate risk to this hazard. Hazardous Materials Event Using the National Response Center and the EPA's Environmental Facts Multisystem Query to locate hazardous waste handling facilities and businesses that generate hazardous waste from .5\\COU-SRV03\SHARED\ADMINISTRATION\AGENDAS & ASRS\APR 2 REGULAR AGENDA\ASRMULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.DOC\26-MAR-08\\ K-8 Appendix K City of Ukiah their activities, 15 critical facilities (worth $24,991,054) are at risk for a hazardous material event within '/4 mile of transportation routes. There is also a considerable amount of critical infrastructure at risk located within '/4 mile of transportation routes including 4 utilities (worth $88,824,000), 2 ground and air facilities (worth $32,155,000), 9 bridges (worth $12,892,212), 5.3 miles of rail (worth $7,397,523.4), and 5.4 miles of highway (worth $27,810,664). There are 1,883 residences valued at $369,961,000, 89 nonresidential buildings worth 229,710,000, and approximately 8,417 people within this buffer zone as well. The Ukiah Softball Complex (worth $237,238) is the only critical facility at risk from a hazardous material event located within'/< mile of EHS sites. Critical infrastructure located in this same radius includes 2 utilities (worth $88,588,000), 1 bridge (worth $1,432,468), 1.3 miles of rail (worth $1,814,748.2), and 0.5 mile of highway (worth $2,755,075). There are approximately 1,575 people living in 276 residences valued at $66,401,000 within this buffer zone as well. Landslide USGS elevation datasets were used to determine the risk of landslides in Ukiah. The slope inclination data assigns landslide potentials at 0 to 14 degrees (0 to 25 percent) (low), 14 to 32 degrees (25 to 65 percent) (medium), and 32 to 72 degrees (65 percent and above) (high). This analysis reveals that nearly 98 percent of the population (15,134) is situated in an area of low risk to this hazard with 4,153 residences (worth $780,045,000) and 102 nonresidential buildings (worth $256,635,000). Onty 2 critical facilities are not within an area of low risk to this hazard. The total value of critical facilities including utilities, government, emergency response, educational, care, community, and ground and air facilities at low risk is $281,557,006. There are also 5.4 miles of highway (worth $27,810,664), 5.3 miles of rail (worth $7,397,523.4), and 10 bridges (worth $14,324,680). The Woodlands Charter School (worth $590,000) and KUKI Channe1277 (worth $118,000) are located in a moderate landslide risk area. Also there are 140 residences valued at $25,444,000, 2 nonresidential buildings worth $6,900,000, and approximately 311 people in this moderate landslide risk area. No critical facilities or infrastructure is located in an area of high landslide risk; however, approximately 16 people live in 7 residences (worth $1,259,000) in areas of high risk to this hazard. Tsunami A 10-foot maximum run-up area was used to categorize moderate risk to facilities, infrastructure, and other buildings based on NOAA models for maximum run-up future scenarios. There are no critical facilities and infrastructure ornon-critical facilities at risk of tsunami impacts. Urban Conflagration Intensity of development, determined by the percentage of impervious surfaces, determines the risk of urban conflagration. Impervious surfaces accounting for 20 to 49 percent of total cover is considered low developed density and facilities, infrastructure, and other buildings categorized as such are at low risk to this hazard. There are 7 critical facilities (worth $4,406,816) including ~S\\COU-SRV03\SHARED\ADMINISTRATION\AGENDAS & ASRS\APR 2 REGULAR AGENDA\ASRMULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.DOC\26-MAR-08\\ K-9 Appendix K City of Ukiah 2 community facilities and 5 educational facilities in an area of low risk to this hazard. Non- critical facilities in this area of low risk include 2,014 residences (worth $378,673,000), 33 nonresidential buildings (worth $74,911,000), and approximately 7,151 people. Moderate developed density includes areas with impervious surfaces accounting for 50 to 79 percent of total cover and facilities, infrastructure, and other buildings categorized as such are at moderate risk to this hazard. The Civic Center (worth $ 6,659,000), 3 emergency response facilities including the Ukiah Police and Fire Departments and the Ukiah valley Fire Protection District (worth $3,068,000), 6 educational facilities including Nokomis Elementary, Yokayo Elementary, Zeek (Frank) Elementary, Calpella Elementary, Pomolita Middle School, and St. Mary of the Angels School (worth $3,540,000), 3 utilities including the AT&T Central Switch Station, the Electric Substation, and the Hydro Generation Plant (worth $139,918,000), 1 rail facility (worth $25,724,000), 1 bridge (worth $1,432,468), 1.2 miles of rail (worth $1,690,070.9), and 2.1 miles of highway (worth $11,020,301) are at moderate risk to urban conflagration. Non- critical facilities at moderate risk include 1,014 residences (worth $192,402,000), 50 nonresidential facilities (worth $124,772,000), and approximately 4,316 people. Areas with a high risk to urban conflagration include high density areas with large numbers of people who reside and/or work in areas with impervious surfaces that account for 80 to 100 percent of total cover. There are 57 residences valued at $8,840,000, 8 nonresidential buildings (worth $24,282,000), and approximately 187 people in the high risk area for this hazard. Critical facilities and infrastructure at high risk to this hazard include two governmental facilities (worth $2,360,000), River Oak Charter School (worth $590,000), and Ukiah Valley Medical Center valued at $8,260,000, 0.2 mile of highway (worth $883,703), and 0.3 mile of railroad (worth $401,738.2). Wildland Fire Wildland fire hazard areas were identified for this plan by determining the amount of fuel in a given area. The wildland fire model takes into account slope, aspect, and fuel to determine the ranking. This model indicates that in the low risk area for wildland fire there are 2 educational facilities (worth $1,180,000), 2 community facilities (worth $474,476), autility-Williams Communication Ina (worth $118,000), Ukiah Municipal Airport (worth $6,431,000), 1.9 miles of highway (worth $9,668,754), 1.4 miles of rail (worth $1,980,984.7), and 2 bridges (worth $2,864,936). There are also 94 residences (worth $19,816,000), 7 nonresidential buildings (worth $29,064,000), and an estimated population of 451 in the low risk area for this hazard. Within the moderate-risk wildland fire area are 3 government facilities (worth $9,019,000), 3 emergency response facilities (worth $3,068,000), 12 educational facilities (worth $7,080,000), 6 community facilities (worth $2,168,530), the Ukiah Valley Medical Center (worth $8,260,000), 6 utilities (worth $218,742,000), Ukiah Municipal Airport (worth $6,431,000), 8 bridges (worth $11,459,744), 3.9 miles of rail (worth $5,374,979.5), and 3.5 miles of highway (worth $18,037,945). Nearly 95 percent of the population (14,659) lives in an area of moderate wildland fire risk with 4,085 homes valued at $763,630,000 and 96 nonresidential buildings worth $230,151,000. .S\\COU-SRV03\SHARED\ADMINISTRATION\AGENDAS & ASRS\APR 2 REGULAR AGENDA\ASR MULTI-HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.DOC\26-MAR-08\\ K-10 ~i ~ k .k b ~ y w O ~ _T Q U C 0 a+ R b0 'O N x W d L '~ 0 a R 7 b0 d ~i 'fl Ci cC d F~ L Q U x v H On ~C U ~ C O U W S 'V `~ C N N ' On c ` y y C O U y w U 'b tv A W y i °~ a . N mod N O a,g° ro ~ U ~ oc b •~ ~ ,~> U « s . «o~ O pq o vi F R U Ut w~ J b 4 U •--~ N y a,0 O _ ~ C C~ a •- ~' O 'D O ~ m ~ .~ `~ b is ~ ~ ~ CO . ~ Op ~ p "N' ti C ~' R U C ~.U v N :. U 'O 'UO C'~.ti d O ~ w N y v, U ~ ~` mU O C w ~L R.v ~' W ~ ~ Pa iE N ia L G>. ~'D i6 'C ro = " ' '° nv n ^m c ~ ~ ~ :: .5 m c ~ v E e ~ CQ L b ~ ~ F U o N O d •UV w N en ro w "' bA m o c c F. ' o 3 4" o A. ~ id U ~ °' y w o 3 .5 o c b ~ o c o y u 'O y ~ '£ .a C 7 y `~ E o ^C 0. m :: 0 ° d ° 0 0. 'n v ~ d w ~ O L ~ . P . ? id ~"' N ti a i L, « ~= ~ Oa'O « U •O v m O G d O~ , , C v v ~ ~ .R .r E O 0. O r-C~ N E~~ ~ w O i .O. 'O ~' ~ O ,~ O N ~ > vi U U A ~', y 'v O ~ ~ ~ N N '. ~ U C W E E° Q ° a E ~° a L a Q > 3 v U o ~~ v~ Z a , _ ~ . U ~ ^C 7 itl « ~ ~ . y A O n OUn ~' C ~ C U U ~ Ui _ 3c w C CSR ~•°o•°oao C E'~E . . «~ -'`° r i o~oQa°i o d o ~« a~ v n '~- v c ~~ 0 4`- L ~ 'C GAO U N C T °' L U ~ C O h a 'UO ~' ai ~ p .? L1r ~ • ^ v ' G . v R . C '~ > .. _ ~ 0 0 b C O E' ~ R b U O W E N L>~Q N O ~ w:.. ~. . ~ y'~ p b OV]'7 ~U U m « A ~ w ~ « C ~. U C UU F 'O U C9LU a ~ 3 b .d '~ E y ~ C ~ ~ w a « W N~ . o o ~ ~ ~~~~ a w v c '« ;; O D ° ~ a> ~ f,, ~ V U O ~ O W C.. O L, `_ L C N td U N ~. C L C .0 C ~ y ~ y G y "C' E O O" ~ "O" v' ~ O i a . G"O O T C ` O~ 'qRq 't C. ~ b U C U am y~ . - i0 yC W a ° ~ 0. d v ~ 4. . .+ . d ttl O d tE ' f0 « l C ~ ~ yl w b' ~ , ~ W ~ .d L1~ P+. ° U ' E J `1 tNi y N ° N N L ~ a^ Q •G ~ .~J a. L ° ° N v W •o ~ U ~ ~ aCi ~ ~ ~ Q« «' U .. L N F 'w ~ ~°n F o a~i F A U F E« v~ A . A ['. 0.. .+ a . ~ U ' A N w W z .-~ .A N ~ X N x w N y c'1 C 7 N E ~i, .. .. ~ .. o ~ ~„ ~ ~ 7 0 ~ ~ O a O ,~' Cn U C ~ O ~ U~ 'U Oa ,G C U bq L > U ~ 0 A . U '3 O N ~. b ~ C y P. .O W °' W '"' d E ;o o b ~ ~ cL u. ca h0.. ~ L z " ` S ~ E ~ ~ a .d o , ~ R Y 0 N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ L L ° •> ~_ ~ F > €~ z o~ Q o~ o o ~ H N ~ o N ~ ~ ~ y W p. O O 'U 7 0.. ~ G d ~i ~i ~ ~ X b N W sy O c. Q U C 0 b L W x v F H C "' U :: w C ~ p . 3 w ti ~ C ~ O cL C cd ° ' A . ~ ~ h C ~ ~ Z 7 i ~ U c ~ = C ~' °°° v ~ `C' .N ° `ro' ~ ~ ° °' ~ 3 v ~`a s ° o ~ .° ~ ~ .c ~ ~ .c a a°i 3 ,i O , N C T A . y :d y N Cq C ." y .V ~ U 00 ~~ ~ ~ v O .?~ C U C> C .. O 'S O U b ? O . ttl A U N ~--~ iC 0 ~ G y L' O C~ ~ ^ b C ~ d ~ U ~ . V C O A ~ C ~ N a a N ° ~~nn iG E `~ . 'r' v OUq C a' ^ C V v O ~ ~ aoa Q° ~ ~ `. ~ o 0.g c wa U C a d C v O O ` U '~ r~i N N F m U o ~ .G a .~ o U o O G" ~ 00 9 ° ~v N p O O ti ,n i0 y ~O! vi O ti y F. U C 'C O aF., Cr .. v C Cq y ~ ~ y~ C ° . 3 ~ ° ~ 2 ° ~ U c 5 °J o ~ ~ ~, o U a r ~ y ~ o ~~ ~~ ~ . o W y O 'O U ~y a O C~ C a p L : ~ . ... Q 09 O ~ E''~ ~ G ~ ~' o ° o y ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ' g ~ W E O v m ,y ~' :3 `' N o U Oq O O '~" cd b0 C W ai O N on 3 ^ ~ ~: aU.~ _ U E ~ C ~. ~ 0-.d ,C N _ C bq C ' ' ' G '8 ~ y3~ ~:? ~~ ~~ a~ o a o b u o ''to ~° o v c b ~ .°' ° .d o K y o P: a U U O . n. ~ z .~~ t F n .°.~ 4 a° ~ 0.1 ~ U a A ~' u7 ~o C U C U _ b ~ ~. C ~ ~. C O ro C_ U b U N C 0.. Q O U O R W z ~ ~ ~a ~,.eo _; Q aQ O O F 0 p a i 'xi O F ~~ O Q zQ W a G. Q O v~111 W ~" /-. N Qr Cdr d Q Q z W H '~_/ G~i Q x M O ~i U x~ K .X b N V"' ¢, O f-1. U C O r+ bA F+ 'fl L x d A F~ c c ° ° a. a :. 0 0 • y a 7 N d Q Q y y y '~ 3 3 3 ~ G o ~ _ v. c ~ w > E ~ a a a ~ ~ ~ Y R OA Cq y C C A C G C A P. 0. .b L ,~ p b R ti ~ y O 'd o ~~ p E a, , a > ° ~ b ,« ~ b V O y ~ 2 C o o C ~+ y y U ~ rG ° ,d C Vl ~ ~ b ~ d a a Q Or ~ ~ ^ x G W x b ~° C y ~ '~ .CO. ~ y ~ ~ ~ '~ .c `~ 3 c ~ 3 ro ~ ~n O ~ '~ V] V] V v v F a91i ~ v w ~ V C O1 `v w C N .. ^ c~ a o ^ G ~ i 3 . °- o ~ U 1 p ~ O C ~ O X - cd N ~ ' '~ ~ C y o o w ~ ~ w ' m y C y V N G N C G N U . . U C C ~~ '~ C O y N is id = ', A O N y ~ 7 6. ~ ~ [S] p d k. Pr (~ W C4 ~i O M i xro ,k b '~ y ct., p,~ O Q U 0 '~ R x L w h d u L '~ O ai ~U C C w s W O U DO d H 0 iC iy p ~ - YO ~ N ._ ' _T ~ LL U ~ w ttl U O' L D ~ C O ~ x 4l U ~ 0 ~ a ~, `~ C O O ~+ ~ C °' 'O ~ `F° W- ~° Yo N o .~ 'O V ~ d d O ti Q F ~ C r ~ G O R. N «' ~ ~ .. C U y ~ .C O . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U .~ C F F' ~ ~ C A C vi N ~ ~ O C U ~ `~ 0..ti tJ C °- ~ a~ ~ j'' n ~ ~ ~ ~ . ro ~ .~ v ~ C V °' `° , L O ,~ rob a a F, ... a i '- ~, .. 'D N Ll w ,_ U 7~ b N b O N ~i N 'O 'O 'O 'D O p ~ A N R ~n C ~ C .0 C ~ U Cn O A .U+ cC d iC d id Y A ati 0 G O p ~ N U r ii C b C U ~ ~ C " L O , _ ~ ~ o 0 0 0 ~~ v m ~~ ° .°J, ^ w 3 a W w "' y > ' ~ .,, ^ h > d ~ a'~ '^ ~ ~ ~ O C 'O .S .G .G .G 0 ~.! ~ P p .O ~ G W ~ y O y N y ~ G ~ C G G O V y U ~ ~ O U R U U " U U A ~ A C N G y` N C'C ` C ~ 3 3 3 P w' ~° '° b ~ ~ w' ` ~ G'' .~ s N ~ d ~ O o o O C Q ~ C Q~ y Q cd 'i' C .ti ~ ~ y .~ .~ .~ ~ QD b .L ~d C7 7 :7 ~ a W v `d "" W~ W~ O ~' ' .~' oq m o a ~ ' ' ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ H °: w y ~ G E N G C7 b`A a V o a y o ` C C C L ~ CL C Q o ~ ~ w d ~ d O C co ° ~9 O ~ ¢ ~ C y W p O 'O C y ~, k ~ P`. Q .w.. ~ 'iy C i ~ w y 'O' > a v b ~ ~ L % y .cy _ ~" C U C C W • Y O ~ L ~ O ~ Y . G .. ~ 'L ~ N ~ ~ ~ y C v ~ N ~ L Ian GL ~. r O i .J. O L ~ 'a+ t+ O ~ F.y k^ D ~ U ~ Y ~p N .` ~ A ~ ~ fd yN ~ y ~j C 'O = N Y.y ~ + .G b ¢' ~ .» x ~ o C c °~ o ~ w I~ .~ ^~ W ~~ K b A ~~ d ~' U k L .. a 'a c 0 u d O 0 b0 a _N CQ H ro b~ ro~ N d ~ N w `1 N~ ~ ~ ~ ro G~ ~.. y O ~ ~ VCd ~' bO pvt'O^ KGL y, t.~ L~U O~~ w ~ • a 3 t b :: ° w c F c v r y c" = y o b o %. c G ~ w v o y A~ N T~ GJ N C O y ~ x W~ Y i0 ~ N D ,X y. b , m 4 p ~ O~pb F C ~.. O N y 0 0 ~ O . ..~ U E 3 .7 O O .G y . a 0 ~ v i ~G . 7 `~ X ro ~ 0 ro ,n x 7 0 ~O, O U`.~ 6 E a a ~ .. v O. ~' O d v~ a C 0 ro w~ ~, c 3 " y 'c r° s' d .b ~^+ y y O ~ y T Q h H ~? G y 9 0.. CO C O .p d DO ~ O G r ~ `~ .p (y G w W O ~ . ~ x m ~ ~ ° ~ .. ~ .. = e~ s~ E cj~ °E o R c ~ a .~ ro' ro' c d Ca ° G = Ca ~ ~ c. a c . W .~ ~ ~ .L p 'C ~ ~ O .L 0. G. 0. ^A ~ G `T' r Y ' " G R ~i ~ 7+ ~, G d w ro p~ P3 a ao c ;? ,a .. 3 o ro °' ~ s ~. .. o O >, c b e4 o .c 'v ° .~ ,= .y o m r '? ~ 4. eu ,~ A ai ~ ~ ~ ° ~, m .~ ~ v , v o .~ v .:.o s° b ~ 3 ~' ~o ~ ~ aE a a a~ ~°' o ~., ~-° ., .. o w° O .o . • N N ro i ~' N G ro G L f'. N y OD v~~ d ro ,G ro~ ro U .~ ti~~ > > ~~ O 1. L v ro b .~ , v. O a a~ . m~ o w' `~ ro c c >: « _°? O ~. ~ ~ U ro d °' U~ v c ° ~' A Ew ~'~ ^ 3~ c ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ' C ~ ' .~' `° ~ °= °~~ ~ 0'7 m~ U ~ E~'E.~ ^ Q v ro ~~ O ;O ^ v. y h O m ~s ~ ~ c ~ `° c c C Qow ~ O S9 C ~ 3 a2 c c .~ U o~ ~=,b U .,., ~ o O a a . ~.~ c s ° ° ~ E ° b 3 ~ ~0 3 ~3 a ° ~ o ~ U o ~ s a i ~ :b ~ r n v o ~ . ° G U °~ ' ti U W a v oa d d cz N O U 'J ``~ ~I x~ X b ~' W aa~ d ~' U K y R C W C 0 v C O i+ R b0 T+ x _d a b F ~ GC T ~ ° H y ,n d .G p '~ ~ ' ^vi ~ ~ Y C y v C 'D y .O N V C~ ~O ~ .d ~~ ~ .09 tU. ~~ .~ .^ v "' C L O N W ~ U .3 v « y U y a y ~ c U ~; c U 3 o w ~ o ~.5v~' v,?~ ':.' a 3 ~ q h° ' ~ ` ~ Q r,. ti ° . 5 ~n v .5 r« « .5 $ w .P. as m ~ c. ~ :.' ~ w 3 w ~ ~ o O 3 a w ~ y T T M ~i F ~ L O Cp . C ~- ~ M ~ ~ W O b Y d Q ~ 0.w ~ ~ xa x ao O ~ Y ~~ 3 y~ 3 C R U U 7 d A 7 7 d 41. W C O . W .~ ~ .L O O O ` L ~ a ~ ~ C Y ~ i~ ~ W G ea ~i O U N O U U a o C L ' O C W •= c n p ~ U ~ A b C~« O i W M ~' N ,~ A ti •.. C v. .~ y= 'd .Y-, C v `° C vi Oq 'a ~ E 7~ ~' id ~tl d O O g N U '~ O .C C m O C F 0 ~ `e u o=q .= y o B .? ~ o u A ^ : o ° ~ v m 3 m c N O U ~ b ~ `~ - .. t c h ~ ~ on co .. U "~ y A ~ ~ ro > ~° ~ 'G 3 3 .,-.'- _. a - C v .E ~ ? o c ao v ~~ o a ~ v i ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ' ~ W G U d ~ ~ F 'O ~ ~ O O C b 4 O ~ ~ ~ b ~ O N ~ ~ 7 G. O m v p m abi w ~ v « ~ tl L r w ` ~ . . ~. u 4. U 7 w w y U G ~. y d a a ~ v o c G w oa w x ~ dZ ~; ~ r~i ~ ro k .X Q w 0.O ¢Y C..) x ~L R C R a C Q C 0 o~ ~C 6! H ~ ~ r U y C U ~ N U ° ~ ~ ~ y , ~ ~ ~ C u m '~ ~ ,C a p~ O a v a ~' ~ '= id U C v GO O ~ 'm 4 A '7 O 'L U W O 'C ~ U of d E H ~~ ' ~ ~_ aw' ~~ ~ L y d N 'G L • ~ d '0 Q Q 0 . ~ .~ ~L O . ` C Y C A ~i O ,y ~- a a p v ~ v o W °a _ .. iv ,b y A G 3 3 a y . 3 c~ , D o ',. u ~ a c m ~ v ~ ~ v : t o A 4 O 4: a.5 a o .E ~ G a U o v o ~ d z Q x H a ~~I /r d Q z w c7 C7 N ~i a s Q Q z w O H U DD 0 N U O Q z a a z 0 H F~ /. ITEM NO. 7e DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM RAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,274 FOR PREPARATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PLATS FOR THE ORCHARD AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the City Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of professional land surveying services costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. The Public Works Department obtained a proposal from Rau & Associates, Inc. for preparation of legal descriptions and plats for acquisition of real property in fee title and certain easements in connection with the Orchard Avenue bridge project. Staff reviewed the proposal and found the proposed fee of $9,274 to be commensurate with the scope of work. Funds for this expenditure are available in the Public Works department budget 340.9645.250.000. This work is reimbursable under the EDA grant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report of the acquisition of professional services from Rau & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $9,274 for preparation of legal descriptions and plats for the Orchard Avenue bridge project. Report is submitted pursuant to City Code. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Tim Eriksen, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Prepared by: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works~~ Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: None. APPROVE ~y--- at Thompson, Interim City Manager AG-ACq-ProfSvs-Orch ardBridgeEasements ITEM NO: 7f MEETING DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL OF PAYMENT TO AV INTEGRATION FOR UPGRADE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER CAMERA SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,102.60 SUMMARY: Section 1522 of the Municipal Code requires a report be filed with the City Council regarding purchases between $5,000 and $10,000. In accordance with the above mentioned section this report is submitted to the City Council regarding the payment to AV Integration by PO# 38010 in the amount of $5,102.60. City Council requested an upgrade to the camera system to include automatic camera zoom and positioning. To accomplish this request, IT enlisted AV Integration to install a second pan tilt zoom camera, video switch and time based corrector. Although not specifically budgeted, funds were available and utilized from account 100.1945.651.002, Community Outreach/Public Information Services for this purpose. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report of payment to AV Integration for the upgrade of the City Council Chamber camera system in the amount of $5,102.60. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: Steven Butler, Information Services Supervisor Prepared by: Steven Butler, Information Services Supervisor Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director; Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: N/A _., Approved: _;;'C~ I _._~f~~,p.~~~_- Pat Thompson, ity Manager ITEM NO: ~g MEETING DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,860.36 TO F.O.D. CONTROL CORP. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE FODBOSS SWEEPER ASSEMBLY SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the Ukiah City Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of the Fodboss Sweeper assembly costing more than $5,000 but less than $10,000. Staff is respectfully submitting notification to the City Council. The City has singled sourced the Fodboss sweeper to F.O.D. Control Corp. due to the unique design of the assembly. No other quotes were available. The Fodboss (Foreign Object Damage) is used to sweep/clean ramp areas at the Airport. The Purchasing Department issued a purchase order in the amount of $7,860.36 for the Fodboss Sweeper Assembly. This expenditure was budgeted and paid for from the following accounts: 600-5001-800 -Machinery & Equipment $7,000.00 600-5001-305 -Buildings & Grounds $ 860.36 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive notification on the expenditure in the amount of $7,860.36 to F.O.D. Control Corporation for the purchase of Fodboss sweeper assembly. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: N/A Requested by: Airport Commission Prepared by: Ken Ronk, Airport Assistant Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager; Paul Richey, Airport Manager Approved'. - CL, ~ _-Zc?7LZ~J~-~,_ Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager ITEM NO. 9a DATE: Aaril 2, 2008 UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 07-33, AMENDING UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE, DIVISION 3, CHAPTER 7 (SIGNS) AND DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2 (ZONING) TO ALLOW TEMPORARY A-FRAME/SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, OTHER OBJECTS TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND MINOR SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING BANNERS AND SIMILAR OBJECTS, MURALS, SIGNS ON AWNINGS, SIGN FRAMES, FREEWAY LOGO SIGNS, COMMUNITY-ORIENTED SIGN PROGRAM, AND OTHER MINOR ISSUES (CONTINUED). SUMMARY: On March 19, 2008 the City Council directed staff to further modify the proposed revisions in Section 3225(K) governing use of banners and similar temporary signage for opening a new business or special promotions. Staff emailed a range of alternatives reflecting Council discussion to the Sign Committee and others who participated in those meetings for input: (1) Delete allowance for gas filled figures for opening and/or promotions. (2) Reduce time to advertise business openings to 14 consecutive days per year. The adopted ordinance allows 60 days, the March 19 draft allows 30 days. (3-A) Reduce promotions to 30 total days per year. (3-B) Reduce promotions to one 30 consecutive day period per year. (3-C) Allow promotions either 30 or 60 total days per year--but not more than 7 consecutive days. The adopted ordinance allows 30 consecutive days, the March 19 draft allows 60 days. Of the two responses received, both agreed with (1 ), and disagreed with (3-B) and (3-C). They differed in their opinion of (2) and (3-A). While the Council mentioned the potential to allow gas filled figures for (continued on Pape 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: (1) Conduct a public hearing; (2) introduce proposed Ordinance Amendment No. 07-33, amending Ukiah Municipal Code, Division 3, Chapter 7 (Signs) and Division 9, Chapter 2 (zoning) to allow temporary a-frame/sandwich board signs within and outside the public right- of-way, other objects to be placed within the public right-of-way, and minor sign code amendments regarding banners and similar objects, signs on awnings, sign frames, freeway logo signs, community- oriented sign program, and other minor issues; and as may be modified by the Council per Alternative 1 or 2; and (3) continue final adoption to date certain. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Provide alternative direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Publicly noticed according to the Ukiah Municipal Code Requested by: Ukiah City Council Prepared by: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance Amending Divisions 3 and 9. APPROVED: Pat Thompson, Interim Manager grand openings, staff believes allowing them for business openings but not for later promotions may be confusing and result in discontent at not being able to use them again. The proposal presented on March 19 and two alternatives follow. Staff notes that the attached ordinance does not incorporate either alternative, but this can be done when the Recommended Motion is adopted. Section 3225(K) presented on March 19: 3225(K). Banners, pennants, twirling signs, balloons or other gas-filled figures may be placed on an occupant's property for: (1) a maximum of thirty (30) consecutive days per year to announce the opening of a new business (including new management); and (2) a maximum of sixty (60) days per year to advertise special activities or promote the business. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review and approve plans for such signage to ensure that it offers no hazard to the safe movement to traffic and does not block permanent identification signs on neighboring properties. Alternative 1: 3225(K). Banners, pennants; iwirlieg~-signs and balloons (but not other oas filled fioures) eFethe~-gas- #iiied-figures may be placed on an occupant's property for: (1) a maximum of thirty (30) consecutive days per year to announce the opening of a new business (including new management); and (2) a maximum of sixty-{~9j thirt 30 days per year to advertise special activities or promote the business. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review and approve plans for such signage to ensure that it offers no hazard to the safe movement to traffic and does not block permanent identification signs on neighboring properties. Alternative 2: 3225(K). Banners, pennants, twir{iaQ-signs and balloons {but not other gas filled fiaures) e~-et#~er-gas- f+Ned-figures may be placed on an occupant's property for: (1) a maximum of thirty (30) consecutive days per year to announce the opening of a new business (including new management); and (2) a maximum of sixty (60) days per year to advertise special activities or promote the business, but not more than seven (7) consecutive days at one time. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review and approve plans for such signage to ensure that it does not overwhelm the buildino or site, offers no hazard to the safe movement to traffic and does not block permanent identification signs on neighboring properties. ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING CHAPTERS 7 (SIGNS) OF DIVISION 3 AND CHAPTER 2 (ZONING) OF DIVISION 9 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE Pursuant to Section 9265 of the Ukiah City Code, Division 3, Chapter 7 (Signs) and Division 9, Chapter 2 (Zoning) are amended to allow portable signs and other objects, including those placed in the public right-of-way, and provide for other minor sign code amendments regarding banners and similar objects, signs on awnings, sign frames, freeway logo signs, community-oriented sign program, and other minor issues as indicated on the attached Exhibit ..A .. SECTION TWO The amendment to Chapter 7 of Division 3 of the Ukiah City Code includes amending Section 3222 (Building, Encroachment, and Electrical Permits) to provide a procedure for issuance of encroachment permits for signs; adding subsection O to Section 3224 (Signs Exempted from Permit Requirements) to exclude signs prohibiting offstreet parking on private property from the requirement for a sign permit; amending subsections H and K of Section 3225 (General Sign Provisions) to allow awning signs to be approved by the Planning and Community Development Department and to limit use of banners and similar signs; adding subsection L to Section 3225 (General Sign Provisions) to allow acommunity-oriented uniform sign program authorized by the City Council; amending subsections D, F, G, M and N of Section 3226 (Prohibited Signs) consistent with other amended sections, and amending subsection A5 of Section 3227 (Permitted Sign Area, Encroachment, Height, Number, illumination and Movement) to allow temporary portable signs subject to standards and criteria; and amending Section 3232(10) (Prohibited Signs) consistent with other amendments. SECTION THREE The amendment to Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Ukiah City Code includes adding subsection F to Section 9176 (Certain Uses Permitted) to allow temporary accessory objects consisting of cafe tables and chairs and street furniture placed in the public right-of-way, subject to standards and criteria. SECTION FOUR This amendment to Chapter 7 of Division 3 and Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Ukiah City Code is necessary to assist in the fulfillment of the General Plan Community Design and Economic Development Elements and Redevelopment Agency Plans by maintaining a sense of place, increasing interest in commercial businesses and the downtown area, and providing for the safe and unobstructed movement of pedestrians while maintaining a visually attractive and uncluttered environment. In particular, allowance for portable signs and other objects in the public right-of-way is intended to: 3 Promote shopping, dining, business activity in commercial and industrial zones while maintaining an attractive and uncluttered appearance. Increase pedestrian traffic and interest in street level businesses. • Protect the public safety and reduce obstacles to pedestrians while reducing liability to property owners and the City. SECTION FIVE The amendments in Exhibit "A" are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 because, based on the information contained in the administrative record, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment as follows: 1. The City Fire Department, Building Inspector, and Public Works Departments have been consulted and it is concluded that the proposal would not create health or safety issues affecting persons or property in the area. 2. The temporary placement of small signs in commercial and industrial zones and certain objects accessory, including placement on public sidewalks, will not disturb the environment or create visual impacts. 3. Other proposed amendments are administrative in nature or reduce potential existing visual impacts. SECTION SIX This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. SECTION SIX This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption. Introduced by title only on by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Passed and adopted on , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4 ATTEST: Linda Brown, City Clerk Doug Crane, Mayor 5 EXHIBIT A Ordinance No. SECTION ONE Section 3222 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3222: BUILDING, ENCROACHMENT, AND ELECTRICAL PERMITS: A building permit shall be required for any sign which, in the opinion of the Chief Building Official, constitutes a structure or structural alteration. An electrical permit shall be required for any sign to be served by electricity. An encroachment permit shall be required from the City Public Works Department for any sign located within or projecting into the public right-of-way. Applications for encroachment permits under this Chapter shall be filed with the Public Works Department accompanied by a plot plan sufficient to show the details of the proposed sign size, height, any other information deemed necessary by the Planning Director or Public Works Director, and application fees established from time to time by Resolution of the City Council adopted in accordance with the procedures required by law. The Public Works Director retains the right to revoke any issued encroachment permit for a sign in the right-of-way determined to be a nuisance or detrimental to the public safety or convenience. SECTION TWO Subsection O of Section 3224 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby added to read as follows: Section 3224: SIGNS EXEMPTED FROM PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: O. Signs prohibiting parking on private property in conformance with Section 7389 of Chapter 3 of Division 8 (Traffic). SECTION THREE Subsections H and K of Section 3225 of the Ukiah City Code are hereby amended and Subsection L is hereby added to read as follows: Section 3225: GENERAL SIGN PROVISIONS: H. Awning signs are allowed subject to review and approval by the Planning and Community Development Department and securing an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department when located within the public right-of-way. Sign area shall be calculated as defined in Section 3200.05. These shall not be considered as projecting signs. K. Banners, pennants, twirling signs, balloons or other gas-filled figures advertising devices may be placed on an occupant's property for: (1) a maximum of thirty (30) consecutive days per year to announce the opening of a new business (including new management); and (2) a maximum of sixty (60) days per year to advertise special activities or promote the business. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall review and approve plans for such signage to ensure that it offers no hazard to the safe movement to traffic and does not block permanent identification signs on neighboring properties. L. Signs installed pursuant to a uniform community-oriented sign program designed to provide direction, information or recognition to places, events, culture or other distinguishing aspects of the City of Ukiah. The sign program application specifying signage area, type, size, height, location, design, colors, materials and other information to ensure the sign program will enhance the vitality6 and character of the City of Ukiah shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and such sign program authorized by the City Council. SECTION FOUR Subsections D, F, G, H, M and N of Section 3226 of the Ukiah City Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3226: PROHIBITED SIGNS: D. Banners, pennants, searchlights, twirling signs, balloons or other gas-filled figures placed on an occupant's property or in the public right-of-way, except as otherwise provided by this Chapter. F. Portable or wheeled signs, except the following: 1. Real estate signs not exceeding six (6) square feet per side placed on the offered property. 2. Temporary portable signs as provided by this Chapter. G. Any sign that utilizes visible guy wires, angle irons and iron frame structures, unless construction is otherwise impractical, provided that decorative metal frames may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development when consistent with a historical or architectural style exhibited on the property. M. Off-premise signs: Off-premises signs shall not be permitted within the City limits, except the following: 1. Real estate "open house" signs not exceeding six (6) square feet placed on private property with permission of the property owner (directional type). Such signs shall be allowed only during hours of open house. 2. Temporary portable signs as provided by this Chapter. N. Corner Properties: Free standing, projecting, portable and other detached signs from the ground level to eight feet (8') in height shall be prohibited in the area formed by measuring at the property line a distance of thirty feet (30') from the point of intersection of the two (2) streets, and connecting at these lines in triangular fashion, provided that signs within this area may be allowed subject to approval of the Public Works Director and the securing an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department when located within the public right-of-way. SECTION FIVE Subsection A(5) of Section 3227 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3227: PERMITTED SIGN AREA, ENCROACHMENT, HEIGHT, NUMBER, ILLUMINATION AND MOVEMENT: A5. The provisions of this Section do not prohibit in addition to other free standing signs, one (1) portable sign per parcel, subject to the following: a. Sign area shall not exceed six (6) square feet per side and four feet (4') in height. b. The sign shall be removed during hours that the business is not open to the public c. In cases where more than one business is located on a parcel, the total number of signs? under this section shall not in the aggregate exceed the following: i. One (1) portable sign per fifty lineal feet (50') of street frontage per parcel. When four (4) or more businesses are located on a parcel under one ownership, one (1) portable sign per four (4) businesses shall be permitted. Except, on parcels within the Downtown Revitalization District where there is no setback between the building and the public right of way line and a freestanding or projecting sign is not feasible, one (1) sign per business shall be allowed, not exceeding one (1) sign per fifteen (15) lineal feet of street frontage per parcel. ii. The sign(s) allowed by this section shall be placed along the street frontage of the business; or may be oriented to parking areas, pedestrian malls or internal courts on the same parcel. iii. Parcels with no public street frontage other than the access way (flag lots) shall be allowed one (1) off-premise sign, regardless of the number of businesses, placed near the primary entrance to the parcel with either the approval of the owner of the property where the sign is placed or with the issuance of an encroachment permit if located within the public right of way. d. The sign shall at all times present a tastefully designed and well-maintained appearance. Notwithstanding their temporary nature, such signs shall not be made of cardboard or similar materials which exhibit a makeshift or haphazardly constructed or designed appearance. e. Notwithstanding Section 6170 of Chapter 3 of Division 7, signs allowed by this Section may be placed within the public right-of-way, provided an encroachment permit has been issued by the Public Works Department and compliance therewith is maintained. In addition: i. Signs in the public right-of-way shall be maintained free of appendages or conditions that pose a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles, and insure visually impaired pedestrians can detect the sign safely. Supporting members should be located within the footprint of the sign to prevent tripping; any projection shall be flat and measure no more than one-half inch (0.5") in height above the sidewalk surface. Dome-shaped support bases are prohibited. The sign shall not be secured to trees, hydrants, street signs, or any other infrastructure by any means. The sign shall not be illuminated. ii. Sign placement shall provide for the safe and unobstructed movement of pedestrians and vehicles including adequate sight distance to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public Works Director. The placement of signs shall maintain a minimum five foot (5') wide clear space on any sidewalk or pedestrian path and be coordinated with other elements to provide for the public convenience, reduce hazards, and maintain an uncluttered and unobstructed appearance. Signs shall be situated so that neighboring businesses and all legal signs are visible to pedestrians and motorists. f. Deviations from the provisions of this subsection, excluding the requirement for issuance of an encroachment permit for signs placed in the public right-of-way, may be allowed pursuant to the approval of a Use Permit. SECTION SIX Section 3232(10) of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended by deleting the A-frame/sandwich board illustration. SECTION SEVEN 8 Section 9176 of Chapter 2 of Division 9 of the Ukiah City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection F to read as follows: Section 9176: CERTAIN USES PERMITTED: F. Temporary accessory objects placed in the public right-of-way. Notwithstanding Section 6230 of Division 7 of Chapter 3, the temporary placement of cafe tables and chairs accessory to an eating establishment and street furniture, such as benches and landscape planters, may be placed proximate to an existing legal use subject to the following. Racks, tables, bins and other merchandise are prohibited, except as part of a civic, patriotic or special event of general public interest taking place within the City, subject to a special events permit. 1. Placement of any temporary accessory object within any public right-of-way is prohibited without securing an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, including compliance with insurance requirements and any conditions placed thereon to ensure the public safety and convenience and compliance with this Section. Applications for encroachment permits under this Section shall be filed with the Public Works Department accompanied by a plot plan sufficient to show the details of the object's size, height, location and any other information deemed necessary by the Planning Director or Public Works Director, and application fees established from time to time by Resolution of the City Council adopted in accordance with the procedures required by law. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, the Public Works Director retains the right to revoke any issued encroachment permit for any object determined to be a nuisance, detrimental to the public safety or convenience, or noncompliant with this Section. The placement of all objects shall comply with all requirements and orders of the Fire Marshal. 2. The location and dimensions of temporary accessory objects shall be coordinated with other elements and shall provide for the safe and unobstructed movement of pedestrians and vehicles and visual attractiveness to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Public Works Director and as follows: a. The location of temporary objects shall maintain a minimum width of five feet (5') of space on the sidewalk or pedestrian path clear of obstructions caused by trees, hydrants, posts, poles and any other infrastructure or objects, and providing accessibility to site and building entryways, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and cross walks. Objects shall not obstruct more than fifty percent (50%) of the width of any sidewalk or pedestrian path that is ten feet (10') or wider, excluding the strip of land adjacent to the street where sign poles, hydrants and other infrastructure are located. b. Temporary accessory objects shall be placed adjacent to the building, unless infeasible or an alternative location would be more consistent with this Section as specified by an encroachment permit. Objects shall be situated so that neighboring businesses and all legal signs are visible to pedestrians and motorists. c. Temporary accessory objects shall be located and maintained free of appendages or conditions that pose a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles, and insure visually impaired pedestrians can detect the object safely. Supporting members should be located within the footprint of the object to prevent tripping; any projection shall be flat and measure no more than one-half inch (0.5") in height above the sidewalk surface. Dome-shaped support bases are prohibited. Platforms or sidewalk coverings prohibited. Temporary accessory objects shall not be secured to trees, hydrants, street signs, or any other infrastructure by any means. 3. Temporary accessory objects shall be removed during hours that the business is not open to the public, with the exception of landscape planters or other approved encroachments that are consistent with the provisions of this Section as determined by the Planning Director and too heavy or not reasonably feasible to move each day as determined by the Public Works Director. g 4. Temporary accessory objects shall at all times present a tastefully designed and well- maintained appearance. Furniture and objects placed by the same business shall be visually or thematically similar. Cafe table umbrellas situated so as to not pose a hazard due to tipping or injury are allowed, provided they are of muted solid color, canvas type (no vinyl or plastic) and designed specifically for outdoor patio use. Podiums, heat lamps and service objects are prohibited. Furniture and other objects shall not have any signage, logos, or other commercial representations. All objects shall be maintained in good condition, without visible fading, dents, tears, rust, corrosion, or chipping or peeling paint, and of durable and sufficiently sturdy construction so as to not pose a hazard or blow over with normal winds. Planters must have installed healthy live plants at all times. 5. Deviations from the provisions of this Section, excluding the requirement for issuance of an encroachment permit for objects placed in the public right-of-way, may be allowed pursuant to the approval of a Use Permit. ### 10 ITEM NO. 10a DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF A REVISED CONSENT TO SALE [TRANSFER STATION CONTRACT] AND A REVISED ASSIGNMENT AND CONSENT [WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACT] SUMMARY: This Agenda Summary Report will introduce this item. If final agreements are available on or before April 2, those will be distributed to the City Council as soon as they become available. If they are not available by April 2, this matter should be continued to April 16. BACKGROUND The City Council formed a subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Douglas Crane and Council member John McCowen to review a request from Solid Waste Systems, Inc. (SWS), the City's franchised solid waste hauler and the operator of a solid waste transfer station on Taylor Drive (the "Transfer Station") serving the City and the unincorporated areas in the Ukiah Valley. SWS requested the City Council to approve a sale of the stock of SWS from the Ratto Group, owned by Jim Ratto and his wife ("Ratto"), to David Carroll, John Shea and Bruce McCracken (the "Buyers"). It also requested approval from the City for an assignment of the waste collection franchise agreement from SWS to a newly formed company, Ukiah Waste Solutions, Inc. (UWS), also owned by the Buyers. The City Council's consent was required under the waste collection franchise agreement ("Waste Collection Contract") and the agreement for the operation of the Transfer Station ("Transfer Station Agreement"). Continued on Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve revised agreements, when presented to the City Council. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Refuse to approve revised agreements or direct the subcommittee and staff to negotiate different terms Citizen Advised: Requested by: David Carroll, John Shea and Bruce McCracken Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Mayor Douglas Crane; Council member John McCowen Attachments: APPROVED: ~` ~/C~! ~c Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager April 2, 2008 Page 2 of 4 On October 29, 2007, the City Council approved an agreement approving the sale of SWS stock and the Transfer Station to entities controlled by the Buyers. This agreement was called the Consent to Sale [Transfer Station Contract]. The City Council also approved an assignment of the waste collection contract to entities controlled by Buyers. This agreement was called the Assignment and Consent [Waste Collection Contract]. PERTINENT TERMS OF THE CONSENTS AFFECTED BY RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Under these agreements, the City required Ratto to indemnify the Buyers for a period of three years from the date of the sale against any failure by Portrero Landfill, Inc., to honor a particular disposal agreement between Portrero Hills and SWS ("the 1997 Agreement"). Portrero Hills is the only landfill approved for the disposal of refuse received by the Transfer Station. The agreement also authorizes the Buyers to take green and wood waste received at the Transfer Station to a grinding facility owned by an entity controlled by Buyers which is located on North State Street ("the North State Street Facility"). The Assignment and Consent authorized the Buyers to take green and wood waste collected at the curbside in Ukiah directly to the North State Street Facility under specified conditions. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 1. Portrero Hills At the time of these approvals, the City and Buyers expected escrow on the sale of these businesses from Ratto to Buyers to close on or shortly after October 30, 2007. In fact, escrow has not closed. The primary reason for this delay is the Buyers' discovery that the 1997 Agreement, which provided a very low gate fee for disposing of refuse at the Portrero Hills landfill, had never been implemented. Instead, Ratto has been taking Transfer Station refuse to Portrero Hills under a different agreement with the same gate fee, but that agreement expires in April 2008. The term of the 1997 Agreement coincided with the terms of the Transfer Station and Waste Collection contracts between SWS and the City. The Buyers have been trying to figure out how to deal with the loss of this guaranteed low gate fee and the prospect that the gate fee at the Portrero Hills landfill could increase by as much as $10 per ton to $38 per ton, beginning in April. This poses a significant business risk for the Buyers, because the Transfer Station Agreement does not permit SWS to increase the gate fee at the Transfer Station based on an increase in the gate fee at the landfill to which it takes the refuse received at the Transfer Station. The Buyers can't pass that cost through the Transfer Station gate fee to the customers of the franchised waste haulers which use the station. This includes SWS, as the City's waste franchised waste hauler, and Waste Management, Mendocino County's licensed waste hauler. Instead, the Buyers have to pay for that increased cost with other revenues. The Buyers are exploring several alternatives, including the use of a landfill in Anderson and negotiating a more favorable gate fee with Portrero Hills. However, they may not have an 2 APrf~ 2, zoos Page 3 of 4 agreement with a landfill in place before they would like to close escrow on the purchase of the businesses from Ratto. In the absence of any alternative, they can take the refuse to Portrero Hills for $38 per ton. 2. Green waste and Cold Creek Compost The other recent development involves Cold Creek Compost ("CCC"), a composting facility in Potter Valley, to which SWS has been required to take green and wood waste received at the Transfer Station. Under the consents, after close of escrow, green and wood waste collected in the City can go directly to the North State Street Facility. Green and wood waste collected at the Transfer Station can also go to the North State Street Facility. When the City Council approved these agreements, CCC's owner, Martin Mileck, and the Buyers were negotiating a joint venture agreement. They have not been able to agree on the terms of that joint venture and are no longer negotiating over those terms. Martin Mileck maintains that he needs this material for his composting operation and that his business will not survive without it. CCC currently charges $32 per ton to accept green and wood waste, which it grinds, mixes with other materials, and processes into compost. Mileck maintains that he needs a certain quantity of this type of material in order to have the right mix of materials to process grape pumice and other materials that he accepts at his facility. The North State Street Facility is contractually obligated to accept green and wood waste from the City and the Transfer Station at $30 per ton. It grinds that material for recycling at other facilities. The Buyers are willing to take green and wood waste collected in the City to CCC. However, they want the option to take green and wood waste received at the Transfer Station to Palco in Scotia or to Reuser, Inc., because those options are much more profitable than taking the material to CCC. Reuser actually pays the Buyers for ground woodwaste and picks it up at the North State Street Facility, saving Buyers the cost of transporting the material. Palco pays enough for refuse delivered to its co-generating plant to cover the transportation costs. Reuser uses the ground wood waste to make wood chips that it can sell as a gardening material. The Buyers maintain that having these options are essential to the financial viability of their business, because they need that revenue to off-set the increased landfill and fuel costs that they are facing. On March 26, 2008, the subcommittee organized a meeting among the Buyers, Mileck, and Mike Sweeney to see if the Buyers and Mileck could agree on a quantity of material that the Buyers would continue to take to CCC and on the gate fee CCC will charge to accept that material. Some tentative agreements were reached, but the Buyers and Mileck agreed to continue discussions on their own to see if they could iron out their remaining differences. The subcommittee made clear to both the Buyers and Mileck that they were looking for a compromise that will keep composting available in Mendocino County, but also keep garbage rates for City residents as low as possible and the Buyers' business financially viable. The City Council subcommittee also learned that state law imposes a cap on the credit local jurisdictions can get toward achieving the AB 939 requirement to recycle 50% of the 3 April 2, 2008 Page 4 of 4 jurisdiction's waste stream, for green waste which is used for "biomass conversion," such as at the Palco co-generation facility. Public Resources Code Section 41783.1 requires Integrated Waste Management Board approval for recycling by biomass conversion and currently limits the credit for waste diversion to 10% of the jurisdiction's 50% requirement. CURRENT STATUS The subcommittee participated in the meeting described above. At the end of the meeting, Martin Mileck was going to confirm the tonnage he requires to keep his business viable, and the Buyers were going to investigate the costs of taking additional green waste, not originating in Ukiah or at the Transfer Station, to CCC. They are supposed to further explore an agreement that would meet the needs of both businesses. Those agreements may be worked out by the April 2, 2008, City Council meeting, or they may not. If so, the subcommittee will present a revised Consent to Sale [Transfer Station Contract] and a revised Assignment and Consent [Waste Collection Contract] for the City Council's consideration as soon as they become available prior to the meeting. If not, this matter may be continued to the next City Council meeting on April 16, 2008. PROPOSED CHANGES TO AGREEMENTS In addition to provisions addressing green waste, the Consent to Sale [Transfer Station Agreement] must be revised by deleting paragraph 3.d which required Ratto to indemnify the Buyers for Portrero Hills refusing to comply with the 1997 Agreement, and replacing it with a new paragraph 3.d. which gives the City Manager the authority to approve the use of a landfill other than Portrero Hills, but reiterates that the Buyers cannot increase the gate fee at the Transfer Station based on increased gate fees or transportation costs associated with the use of a different landfill. Paragraph 2.a of the Assignment and Consent [Waste Collection Contract] must be revised to confirm agreement with the recently approved rate increase for curbside waste collection in the City, rather than with the conduct of that rate review, since the review has been completed. The other changes to both agreements will address green and wood waste. 4 ITEM NO. 11a DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: SET DATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 BUDGET HEARINGS AND FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 BUDGET GOALS/OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP SUMMARY: The City Council typically sets two days in the last week of June for departmental presentations, public input and Council discussion and adoption of the upcoming fiscal year's proposed budget. In addition, the Council holds a joint meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to discuss same. Staff is requesting Council direction on the preferred dates for Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget hearings. Staff recommends setting June 24th and 25th as the dates for the Fiscal Year 2008-09 budget hearings. Staff further requests authorization to coordinate a joint meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to discuss the budget on one of these two dates. In advance of the budget hearings above, the City Manager and staff would like to present their departmental "goals" for Council discussion. This gives Council the opportunity to have input and suggest changes before final budget numbers are submitted by the Department Directors to the Budget Team. Please suggest two days the last week in April, 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. or possibly one evening 5 p.m. - 9 p.m. whichever works best. Council has tenatively set April 30th aside for a Strategic Planning Workshop. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Set June 24th and June 25, 2008 as dates for the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Hearings and authorize the City Clerk to notice Public Hearing prior to hearings. 2) Direct staff to coordinate a joint meeting budget hearings with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District to discuss the budget on one of these two dates. 3) Set date and time for a Fiscal Year 2008-09 Goals/Objectives workshop. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1) Choose alternate dates for budget hearings and authorize the City Clerk to notice Public Hearing prior to hearings; 2) Provide other direction. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Sue Goodrick, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Coordinated witkLPat Thomason. Interim Citv Manager Interim City Manager CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 BUDGET SCHEDULE March 27, 2008 (Subject to Change) DATES ACTION RESPONSIBILITY March 6 Expenditure/Revenue Reports provided to Directors Sue for review/submittal of projected actuals for 07/08. March 10 General Fund revenue projections for FY 07/08 to Gordon Finance Director for use in developing Mid Year Budget Report. March 19 FY 2008/09 Mid Year Budget Amendments approved Sue/Gordon (ASR prep) by City Council. Directors March 28 Revenue (non-general fund) & expenditure Directors Projections for FY 07/08 due to Budget Officer. April 2 Set dates for budget hearings. Sue (ASR prep) April 4 Budget Instructions prepared & distributed to Sue Departments. Includes updated budget revenue and expenditure worksheets (green bar) with Department submitted projected actuals. April 7 Review current allocation ratios to departments for Gordon/Sue/Directors charges for garage, utilities, general government, building maintenance, etc. April 21 Requests for proposed changes in personnel allocations, Directors and FY 08-09 goals/objectives due to Budget Officer. April 29/30 Proposed Council workshop on departmental goals Council/Directors & objectives. May 1 May 2-5 May 6-9 May 19 Week of May 12 May 22 Departments submit proposed 08/09 revenue & expenditure Directors budgets and narratives to Budget Officer. Input Department budget requests in Excel Budget/AS400 Departmental Budget Conferences - Review & Finalization Preliminary budget numbers finalized (City Manager Recommendations) by City Manager Finance, Budget Officer. Update new City Manager on budget. Preliminary budget completed, reproduced, and distributed to departments for final review. Sue Pat/Gordon/Sue Directors Gordon/Sue/Pat Gordon/Sue Sue CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 BUDGET SCHEDULE March 27, 2008 (subject to change) DATES ACTION May 28 Sewer budget on regular Sanitation District agenda for Preliminary review. May 27 Final department review and comments to Budget Officer May 28-30 Final department comments considered by City Manager, Budget Officer and Finance. June 2 Budget message prepared. June 4 Final draft budget produced and distributed to the City Council in advance of the Agenda Packet and to Ukiah Valley Sanitation District by separate distribution. June 9 Final draft budget available for public review at Library, Civic Center counter. June 18 City Council continue regular meeting to specific dates and times for Budget Hearings. June 24-25 City Council (including Redevelopment Agency and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District) Budget Hearing held and Budget Adopted. July 11 Final Adopted Budget produced and distributed. Sue July 25 Final Adopted Budget posted to web site. Linda RESPONSIBILITY Gordon/Sue/ Paul Cayler Directors Jane/Gordon/Sue Jane/Sue/Gordon Sue Sue Jane City Council Pat/Directors ITEM NO. 11 b DATE: April 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF LOCAL PREFERENCES IN PURCHASING AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING SAME SUMMARY: The City Council has asked whether the City could adopt an ordinance providing a preference to local businesses in responding to requests for bids or requests for proposals from the City to purchase supplies, equipment, professional or personal services, and for construction projects. CONCLUSION In my opinion, the City cannot provide a local preference for public works contracts where the contract price is more than $30,000, because of the state law requirement to award those contracts to the lowest bidder. However, if the City Council can adopt adequate findings, it can adopt a local preference ordinance for the procurement of other goods and services. DISCUSSION I have received memoranda from the city attorneys for four different cities which address the legality of providing a preference to local businesses, when purchasing goods or services. I also looked at the Santa Rosa ordinance providing a local preference and several others. The preferences range from 1 % (the most common) to 5%. The common rationale for 1 % is that the city gets 1 % of the sales tax paid on Continued on Paoe 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss whether to consider the adoption of a local preference purchasing ordinance and provide direction to staff on the key elements of that ordinance, such as the amount of a local preference, purchases included or excluded from the preference, the definition of local business, and potential findings to justify the ordinance. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: City Council Prepared by: David J. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Attachments: APPROVED: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager April 2, 2008 Page 2 of 5 purchases from local vendors. The Santa Rosa preference, for example, reads as follows: (I) Local Preference. A one percent preference shall be granted to local bidders in determining low monetary bid, except that the amount of the preference shall not exceed $5,000.00. "Local bidder" is defined as a business entity with its principal place of business located within the City limits. To qualify for the preference, local bidders must submit proof of the address of its principal place of business and a copy of a current City business license with their bids. This provision shall only apply to bids where written bids are solicited, and shall not apply when conducting verbal quotations. These provisions shall not apply to bids that are intended to be in cooperation with other jurisdictions. These provisions may be waived by the Purchasing Agent when prohibited by the conditions of federal, state or private grant monies. This section appears in Section 3-08.130 of the Santa Rosa City Code, governing competitive bidding. Santa Rosa is a charter city, and its charter allows a local preference in all contracting. Ukiah is a general law city. State law requires it to accept the lowest responsive bid on public works contracts in excess of $30,000. Consequently, the City could not provide a preference on construction contracts for more than $30,000. (See, e.g., Associated General Contractors of California v. City and County of San Francisco (1987) 813 F.2d. 922 [San Francisco' s five percent bidding preference for local businesses invalid for contracts over $50,000, because of a charter provision requiring award to the lowest bidder on construction contracts over that amount. A local preference for contracts of less than $50,000 upheld.]' Aside from the state law public works bidding requirements for general law cities, like Ukiah, local preferences have been challenged under the following provisions of the United States Constitution: the Commerce Clause (Article I, section 8, clause 3), the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, section 2, clause 1), and the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment. The Commerce Clause is not a problem, where the City acts in its capacity as a market participant rather than a market regulator. If the City is purchasing goods or services, it can provide a preference for local businesses without violating the Commerce Clause, whereas it might not be able to do that, if it was imposing a tax or regulation which favored local businesses. (See, e.g., Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980) ["Nothing in the purposes animating the Commerce Clause prohibits a State, in the absence of congressional action, from participating in the market and in exercising the That case also addressed whether preferences for minority and woman owned businesses were valid under the Equal Protection Clause. That portion of the opinion was reversed in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). 2 April 2, 2008 Page 3 of 5 right to favor its own citizens over others."]; see, also, White v. Massachusetts Council Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 (1983).) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal constitution will invalidate city ordinances that impose a hiring preference for local residents on public works contracts, unless the city can demonstrate a substantial reason for the preference. (United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County & Vicinity v. City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 104 S. Ct. 1020, 79 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1984).) Three of the four city attorney memoranda I reviewed conclude that the Privileges and Immunities Clause would not invalidate a modest local preference for local business seeking to contract with the City. They have relied on two arguments. In the first argument, they analogize contracting with a city to employment by a city. The privileges protected by the clause have been held not to apply to public employment and this is argued to be the same as direct contracting with a city to provide goods or services. In the second argument, they point out that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the privileges of individual citizens, but not business entities. Since the local preference is directed at businesses, not individuals, they argue that it would not prevent a local preference for local businesses. (W.C.M. Window Co. v. Bernardi, 730 F.2d 486, 492 (7th Cir. 1984) [Privileges & Immunities Clause does not protect corporations].) On the other hand, one memorandum points out that individuals conduct business, not just business entities such as corporations, partnerships or limited liability companies. For that reason, it recommended that the city attempt to make findings to justify the preference, since the U.S. Supreme Court in the Camden case said at page 223 that: Every inquiry under the Privileges and Immunities Clause "must . . be conducted with due regard for the principle that the States should have considerable leeway in analyzing local evils and in prescribing appropriate cures." [Quoting] Toomer v. Witsell, supra, at 396. This caution is particularly appropriate when a government body is merely setting conditions on the expenditure of funds it controls. The Court said findings were necessary to determine whether the local preference was narrowly tailored to address the local conditions which created the need for the preference. Findings are also recommended, because of a potential Equal Protection challenge. The Associated General Contractor's case upheld the local preference portion of a San Francisco ordinance which was challenged on Equal Protection grounds. The Court noted that a local preference ordinance would not be permissible, if it had been adopted solely to promote businesses within the city at the expense of non-resident businesses. Specifically, with respect to findings justifying a local preference, the court said: 3 April 2, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Two of the ordinance's findings are relevant to this issue. The first notes that "local businesses which seek to enter into contracts with the City and County of San Francisco are at a competitive disadvantage with businesses from other areas because of the higher administrative costs of doing business in the City (e.g. higher taxes, higher rents, higher wages and benefits for labor, higher insurance rates, etc.)." Ordinance § 12D.2(4). The second is that "the public interest would best be served by encouraging businesses to locate and remain in San Francisco through the provision of a minimal 'good faith' preference to local businesses in the awarding of City contracts." Id. §.2(5). Both of these are legitimate considerations. And, as the Supreme Court has recognized, it is generally legitimate for a governmental entity to encourage businesses to move into the jurisdiction. Metropolitan, 470 U.S. at 879; Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 532-33, 3 L. Ed. 2d 480, 79 S. Ct. 437 (1959) (Brennan, J., concurring). As Metropolitan demonstrates, however, seemingly legitimate ends are tainted if they are pursued by illegitimate or excessive means. Here the means adopted are both measured and appropriate. The preferences given local businesses are relatively slight. LBEs [local business entities] get only a 5 percent bidding preference; there are no goals, quotas or set-asides. Moreover, the preference does not apply to all business transactions conducted within the jurisdiction, only those where the city itself is a party. Finally, the definition of LBE is rather broad; 44 foreign businesses can become LBEs by acquiring "fixed offices or distribution points" within the city and paying their permit and license fees from a San Francisco business address. Thus, any business willing to share some of the burdens of a San Francisco location -- higher rents, wages, insurance premiums, etc. -- can enjoy the benefits of the LBE preference. We see no constitutional infirmity in the city's modest attempt to support local businesses and to induce other businesses to move there. (Emphasis added.) Thus, to be valid under the Equal Protection clause, an ordinance providing a local business preference would have to have a legitimate purpose other than simply favoring local businesses and it would have to use constitutionally permissible means to accomplish that purpose. A preference in how public funds are expended is a more appropriate means than a tax or regulatory measure that discriminates against out-of- city or out-of-state businesses. It is not clear that all of the findings in the San Francisco ordinance are required to establish a valid purpose and means, but certainly the closer the City can get to the findings which supported the San Francisco ordinance, the better. 4 April 2, 2008 Page 5 of 5 The City should explore whether facts would support a finding that local businesses are at a competitive disadvantage as compared to other businesses, when it comes to bidding on City requests for goods or services. The City can justify a local preference as a means of encouraging businesses to locate in the City. The vacancy rate in the City's commercial areas certainly supports an interest in encouraging businesses to locate in the City. A preference of no more than 5% would qualify as a "relatively slight" local preference. Finally, the City should decide whether to follow the San Francisco ordinance by providing the preference to businesses with "fixed offices or distribution points" within the city and which pay their permit and license fees from a City of Ukiah business address; or to follow the Santa Rosa and similar ordinances which make the preference available to businesses which maintain their "principal place of business" in the city. In Associated General Contractors the court gave some weight to the fact that, under the San Francisco ordinance, "any business willing to share some of the burdens of a San Francisco location -- higher rents, wages, insurance premiums, etc. -- can enjoy the benefits of the LBE preference." The same could not be said of the Santa Rosa ordinance, because it requires the business to maintain its principal place of business in the city. Again, however, it is not clear that all of the findings relied upon by the Associated General Contractors decision are required in order for a local preference ordinance to comply with the Equal Protection Clause. If the City Council decides to adopt a local preference ordinance, staff will place a proposed ordinance on a future City Council agenda which contains findings for the City Council's consideration. 5 ITEM NO. 11c DATE: ADril 2, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATIVE TO STATE BALLOT MEASURES 98 AND 99 RELATED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FARMLAND PROTECTION, AND PLACING LIMITS ON EMINENT DOMAIN AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. Submitted for discussion and direction are a Summary of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, Proposition 98, and a Summary of the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, Proposition 99 provided by the League of Cities. The League has also provided sample resolutions urging Cities to Oppose Prop 98 and to Support Prop 99. In addition, the letter presented by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to the State for title and summary related to Prop 98 and the letter from the League requesting same in relation to Prop 99 are also included. The text of the measures is included in these attachments. Councilmember Baldwin asked that Council have an opportunity to review and discuss these two measures. The City Manager included the two resolutions recommended by the League of Cities for review as well, but they have not been calendared for adoption at this meeting. Should the Council wish to consider adopting either or both, they should direct staff to place them on the next Council agenda for action. Continued on pa e 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council review and discuss Propositions 98 and 99. Direct staff to include the League resolutions to be placed on the next Council meeting for action. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Council could request further information. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Phil Baldwin Prepared by: Pat Thompson, Interim City Manager Coordinated with: Linda Brown, City Clerk, and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. California League of Cities Summary of Prop. 98, with Resolution 2. California League of Cities Summary of Prop. 99, with Resolution 3. Proposition 98 4. Proposition 99 A P P R O V E D`~U,~C~ ~+'~ Pa't Thompson, Interim City Manager Because the two ballot measures both address the power of eminent domain, it is imperative to read each thoroughly. In the name of restricting the power of eminent domain, Prop 98 imposes broad restrictions on the power of state and local government to take actions that affect the use and value of real property. In addition to preventing the use of eminent domain to take any private property, whether developed for residential or commercial purposes, for the use of a private person or entity, it also will prohibit taking private property for uses which would be considered public uses under current law, such as for "the consumption of natural resources." It would prohibit the " ...regulation of ...privately owned real property ... in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner." This could include a zoning decision which prevents a use of private property, the prevention of which could enhance the value of neighboring properties. Prop. 98 prohibits rent control, except for units subject to such controls in January 2007, which remain occupied by a tenant who lived in the unit on or before that date. It will take the courts years to determine the full impact of this proposition and will very likely tie up local government land use actions in litigation or the threat of litigation in the meantime. Prop 99 is not as far reaching as Prop 98 and does not use concern over the government's use of eminent domain to change the rules governing local land use regulation for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Prop. 98 is limited to preventing what happened in the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London„ by prohibiting the use of eminent domain "to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private party." Attc.cl ~ment # Summary of California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, Proposition 98 The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property are sponsoring Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot, which would make major changes to laws governing use of property, including use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. The initiative would make the following changes to existing law: Governmental Regulations Affecting Price The initiative would define a regulation of property that limits the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property as a prohibited taking for a private use. This would prohibit rent control ordinances and make unconstitutional inclusionary housing ordinances adopted in many California communities which require new housing development to include units affordable by low- and moderate-income buyers or renters. The effect of this provision on the inclusionary housing provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law is difficult to predict. Redevelopment agencies might still be able to bargain for the provision of affordable units as a condition of agency assistance, but they would not be able to impose such requirements as a matter of law. Limitation on Use of Eminent Domain for Consumption of Natural Resources [n one of its provisions, the initiative would prohibit the use of eminent domain to "transfer the ownership, occupancy or use of private property...to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources..." This provision can be read, for example, to prohibit the use of eminent domain by a city to acquire new drinking water resources. The initiative would also prohibit the use of eminent domain if the public agency would use the property for "the same or substantially similar use as that made by the private owner." This provision would likely eliminate eminent domain as a tool to acquire conservation and open space easements. Regulation of Land Use The initiative requires a public agency to pay `just compensation" when it regulates the use of land if the regulation transfers an economic benefit from the person who owns the land to another person. Under existing law, public agencies use their police power to enact regulations governing the use of privately owned real property. These regulations range from traditional zoning to nuisance regulations and include conditions imposed on the new development of property. Nearly all of these regulations have an economic impact. Some properties are benefited while others are burdened. Read literally, this provision would make unconstitutional virtually all regulation of land use unless just compensation is paid. Restrictions on the Use of Eminent Domain Property may not be taken and then transferred to a private party. For over 50 years, State and Federal Courts have held that the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies to eliminate conditions of blight is a public use. The initiative's definitions of "taken" and "private use" reverse those cases and prohibit the use of eminent domain where the ownership, occupancy or use of the property acquired is transferred to a private person or entity. This would end the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies except for public works projects. It would also prevent [he use of eminent domain by other public agencies in public/private partnerships for facilities such as toll roads and privately-run prisons. Rent controlled units as of January 1, 2007, would be grandfathered, but only for so long as at leas[ one of [he tenants continues [o live in the unit as their principal place of residence. 2. New definition of "just compensation." Existing law requires the payment of just compensation to the owner of property taken by eminent domain. "Just compensation" is defined in the Eminent Domain Law (a statute) as "fair market value." A body ofwell-established law interpreting the meaning of `just compensation" allows both public agencies and property owners to be reasonably certain about the value of property to be acquired. In large part because the value of the property is predictable, an acquisition usually does not require the use of eminent domain and rarely will an eminent domain case actually go to trial. The initiative would add a constitutional definition of "just compensation" that would prevail over this settled body of law. This will probably result in the need to have more frequent recourse to the courts to settle disputes over the meaning of `just compensation." Among the other changes that the initiative would make are the following: a. Just compensation would include an award of the property owner's attorney's fees if the jury awards one dollar more than the amount offered by the public agency. It is unclear which offer to purchase this provision refers to. b. Just compensation would include elements not currently recognized such as temporary business losses. Relocation and other business re-establishment costs would also be elevated to constitutional status, thereby perhaps abrogating existing statutes which place limits on the type and amount of such expenses for which compensation must be paid. Acguirine "immediate possession" of property made more complicated. Under existing law, after depositing with the court the estimated just compensation, a public agency can obtain possession of property prior to a final judgment based on a showing of an overriding need for the condemnor to take possession prior to final judgment If [he property owner withdraws the deposit, he or she waives their right to contest whether the taking is for a public use but may still contest the amount ofjus[ compensation. The initiative would change this approach to prejudgment possession by permitting the property owner to contest both public use and just compensation after withdrawing the deposit. This would make the use of prejudgment possession more problematic for public agencies since they would still be at risk of being prohibited from taking the property (if they lose the right to take issue) rather than simply paying more for it. 4. Balance of Hower shifts. Under existing law, when a public agency makes findings in connection with the taking of property by eminent domain, those findings are entitled to strong presumptions of validity. Courts will overturn those findings only where the property owner is able to demonstrate a gross abuse of discretion, such as bribery or fraud. Courts are also limited to reviewing the administrative record before the public agency. These rules are rooted in concepts of separation of powers-the respect that co-equal branches of government have for the other's proceedings. The initiative would provide that a court must exercise its independent judgment and give no deference to the findings of the public agency. The court's inquiry would also not be limited to the administrative record, and so the property owner could introduce evidence of value and other matters not before the condemning agency at the time the decision to condemn was made. Att;.,~E ~ment # ~ a SAMPLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 98 WHEREAS, a constitutional amendment ballot measure, Proposition 98, will appear on California's June 2008 ballot; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 proponents want voters to believe the initiative is about eminent domain, but in fact the measure contains hidden agendas and flawed language which will eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning and impair our ability to protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the majority of the funding to qualify this measure comes from wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are attempting to trick voters into abolishing rent control and other renter protections, thereby jeopardizing an important affordable housing tool to protect working families, seniors, single-parent homes, veterans and others; and WHEREAS, provisions in the initiative would also preclude the use of eminent domain to acquire land or water to develop public water projects that are needed to provide our residents, businesses, farmers and economy with a reliable and safe supply of water; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies and the Western Growers Association, who warn the initiative will impair water projects to protect water quality and supply; and WHEREAS, language in the initiative will also prohibit the passage of regulations, ordinances, land use and other zoning laws that enable local governments to plan and protect communities; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure because it threatens their ability to keep communities and the public safe; and WHEREAS, leading environmental groups warn provisions in the measure would impair our ability to enact environmental protections such as laws that control greenhouse gas emissions, preserve open space, protect coastal areas, and regulate development; and WHEREAS, the No on Proposition 98 campaign is represented by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who oppose Proposition 98. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE of the that we hereby oppose Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we authorize the use of our name by the No on Proposition 98 campaign in opposition to Proposition 98. We direct staff to fax a copy of this adopted resolution to 916.442.3510. Rtt~c;i ~ment # ~ Summary of the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, Proposition 99 The Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act is an initiative constitutional amendment supported by substantially the same coalition of local government, environmental and business interests that opposed Proposition 90 in 2006. It will appear on the June 2008 ballot as Proposition 99. The initiative would make the following changes to existing law: Restrictions on the Use of Eminent Domain Under existing law, redevelopment agencies may acquire privately owned real property, including single- family homes, located in adopted redevelopment project areas found to be blighted under definitions found in the Community Redevelopment Law. Property thus acquired may be resold to private developers for redevelopment in order to eliminate blight. The ability of units of local government in California, other than a redevelopment agency, to use eminent domain to acquire property for resale to private parties is untested and unknown. In Califomia, the only existing, explicit statutory delegation of the power of eminent domain to acquire property for resale to private parties is found in the Community Redevelopment Law. This distinguishes California from a state such as Connecticut--where the recent case of Kelo vs. the City of New London was decided--that has specific statutory authorization enabling units of local government to use eminent domain for economic development purposes regardless of blight findings. Califomia has no comparable enabling statute. The measure would amend the Califomia Constitution to prohibit the use of eminent domain by the State or a local government to acquire an owner-occupied, single-family residence for transfer to a private person. "Owner-occupied residence" is defined as real property improved with a single family residence (including a condominium or townhouse) that is the owner's principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property. This restriction would apply to the State and all units of local government, including redevelopment agencies. Exceptions The prohibition on the use of eminent domain to acquire single family, owner-occupied homes for resale to private parties would not apply to acquisitions for a public work or improvement. A public work or improvement is defined to include what have been traditionally viewed as public facilities that may be constmcted or operated as public/private partnerships (e.g., toll roads). The limitations of the initiative would also be inapplicable when the State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain to abate a nuisance, protect public health and safety from building, zoning or other code violations, prevent serious, repeated criminal activity, respond to an emergency, or remediate hazardous materials. Effective Date [f passed, [he measure would take effect the day following [he election on June 3, 2008. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before the date on which it becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain is adopted on or before 180 days after that date. Construction with Other Measures The initiative contains a provision that if it appears on the same ballot with another initiative measure dealing with the same or similar subject and both measures pass, this measure will prevail over the other if it receives more votes than the other measure. In such event, the provisions of the other measure will be null and void. Attuca-~ment # ~ a SAMPLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 99 WHEREAS, in June of 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government could take a home through eminent domain to give to a private developer; and WHEREAS, since that decision more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws; and WHEREAS, California has failed to place a prohibition on the use of eminent domain to take homes for private development; and WHEREAS, Proposition 99, which will be on the June 2008 ballot, will prohibit government from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to another private party; and WHEREAS, the protections in Proposition 99 directly address the issues in the Kelo decision and the measure does not contain any unrelated provisions that will result in unintended, harmful consequences for California; and WHEREAS, the League of California Homeowners supports this measure because it will provide ironclad protections for California homeowners; and WHEREAS, the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign is represented by a broad based coalition, including the League of California Cities, California States Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who support Proposition 99; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE of the that we hereby su ort Proposition 99. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we authorize the use of our name by the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign in support of Proposition 99. We direct staff to fax a copy of this adopted resolution to 976.442.3570 Aftrac:liment # 3 Propositions that are on the June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballot Initiative Constitutional Amentlmenl Proposition 98 1248. Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment. Proponents: Doug Mosebar, Jon Coupal and Jim Nielsen (916) 444-9950 Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines "just compensation." Requres an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure's restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant. (Initiative 07-0015.) Full Text HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION HOWARD )ARMS, Founder (1903-1986) ESTELLE JARVLS, Honorazy Chairwoman 70N COU PAL, President TREVOR GRIMM, General Counsel TIMOTHY EI"CILE, Director o(Legal Affairs 0 7- 0 0 1 5 May 1, 2007 Ms. Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator Attorney General's Office 1515 K Street, 6`h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 ~CEIVFp MAY - 32007 Re: California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Dear Ms. Galvan: By this letter, we respectfully request the Attorney General to prepare a title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, a copy of which is attached. The undersigned are the proponents of this measure. We also hereby withdraw Initiative No. 07-0003. Although our previous initiative and the attached proposal both deal with eminent domain and property rights, there are substantial differences between the two. Any correspondence regarding this initiative should be directed to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, 921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-9950. The proponents' resident addresses are attached to this letter. Enclosed is the required $200 filing fee as well as the certification as required by Elections Code Section 18650. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, SinceFely, Stincerely, Doug Mosebar Joel Coupal Jim Nielsen President, California Farm President Howard C}~airman, Cal. Bureau Federation Jarvis Taxpayers fiance to Protect Association ~rivate Property Rights SACRAMENTO OFFICE: 92111th Street, Suite 1201, Sacramento, CA 95819 • (916) 444-9950, Fax: (916) 449-9823 LOS ANGELES OFFICE: 621 South Westmoreland Avenue, Suite 202, Los Angelo, CA 9000,5-3991 • (213) 389-9656, Fax: (273) 384-9870 0 7- 0 0 1 5 SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS (a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own, possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person maybe deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner. (b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts have not protected the people's rights from being violated by state and local governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain. (c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases, the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property. (d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain abuses. SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities. (b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity. (c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner. (d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged. (e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act." SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19ja,~ Private property maybe taken or damaged only for a stated public use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private propertymay not be taken or damaged for private use. For purposes of this section: (1) "Taken" includes transferring the ownership occupancy or use of property from a private owner to a public a ency or to anyperson or entity other than a public a¢ency, or limiting, the price a private owner may charee another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property (2) "Public use" means use and ownership by a public agency or a re lu ated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking including public facilities public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothine herein prohibits leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use• nor is the exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a public road for any private property which is cut off from utilities or access to a public road as a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein. (3) "Private use" means: (i) transfer of ownership occupancy or use of privateproperty or associated property rights to any person or entity other than a roublic agency or a reeulated public utility; (ii) transfer of ownership occupancy or use of private property or associated roropertv rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; or (iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more rorivate persons at the expense of the property owner 2 (4) "Public agency" means the state, special district, county, city, city and county. including a charter city or county, and a~ other local or regional eovernmental entity, municipal corporation, public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the electorate of anypublic agency ~5) "Just compensation" means: (i) for property or associated proroerty rights taken, its fair market value: (ii) for property or associated propertyrights damaged, the value fixed by a jury, or by the court if a jury is waived: (iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by a public agency as defined herein; and (iv) any additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the property owner for temnorazy business losses relocation expenses business reestablishment costs. other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and other expenses deemed comroensable by the Legislature. (6) "Prompt release" means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without preiudicin his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her ri hg t to challenge the taking as beingfor a private use. (7) "Owner" includes a lessee whose property rights are taken or damaged. L8) "Re ulg ated public utility" means any public utility as described in Article XII. section 3 that is reeulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated by a public agency Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article. (~c1In any action by a property owner challen ing a taking_or damaging of his or her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgrrtent, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public a ency The property owner shall be entitled to an awazd of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the court finds that the agency's actions are not in compliance with this section In addition to other legal and equitable remedies that maybe available an owner whose property is taken or dama eg d forprivate use may brim an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate or a declaration invalidatine the action of the public a (d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency or regulated public utiliri from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary sale of property not subiect to eminent domain, or a stipulation re arding the payment of just compensation. (e) If pronerty is acquired by a public agency through eminent domain then before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated nublic use, or convey the property to another person or unaffiliated agency, the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the private owner market value of any improvements fixtures or appurtenances added by the nublic agency, and reduced by the value attributable to any removal destruction or waste of improvements fixtures or annurtenances that had been acquired with the pronerty. If nroperty is repurchased by the former owner under this subdivision it shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value. increased or decreased only as allowed herein, nlus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA. The ri htg to repurchase shall anply only to the owner from which the property was taken and does not apply to heirs or successors of the owner or. if the owner was not a natural person to an entice which ceases to legally exist. (f~ Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency from exercising its Hower of eminent domain to abate nublic nuisances or criminal activity; (g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary ~eements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing. Lh) Nothing in this section nrohibits the California Public Utilities Commission from regulatinE' nublic utility rates. (i) Nothing in this section shall restrict the powers of the Governor to take or damage private property in connection with his or her nowers under a declared state of emergency. 4 SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election ("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit ("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act Shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space. Attc.c;l tment # Propositions that are on the June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballot Initiative Constitutional Amendment Proposition 99 1251. Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment. Proponents: Christopher K. McKenzie, Susan ,Smartt and Kenneth Willis c/o Steve Lucas (41 S) 389-6800 Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquue anowner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. Qnitiative 07-0018.) D7-0018 May 10, 2007 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Attorney General 1300 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator ~ECEIV~ Mar ~ a Zoos INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFI~' Re: Request for Title and Summary- Initiative Constitutional Amendment Dear Mr. Brown: I am one of the proponents of the attached initiative constitutional amendment. Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(d) of the California Constitution and Section 9002 of the Elections Code, i hereby request that a title and summary be prepared. Enclosed is a check for $200.00. My residence address is attached. I also withdraw Initiative No. 07-0006. All inquires or correspondence relative to this initiative should be directed to Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP, 1415 L Street, Suite 1200, Sacramento, CA 95814; Attention: Steve Lucas (telephone: 415!389-6800). Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Christopher K. McKenzie, Proponent Enclosure: Proposed Initiative 07-ools May 10, 2007 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator ~ECEIV~ MAY 14 2~7 INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEYGENERAL'SOFFlCE Re: Request for Title and Summary- Initiative Constitutional Amendment Dear Mr. Brown: I am one of the proponents of the attached initiative constitutional amendment. Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(d) of the California Constitution and Section 9002 of the Elections Code, I hereby request that a title and summary be prepared. Enclosed is a check for $200.00. My residence address is attached. I also withdraw Initiative No. 07-0006. All inquires or correspondence relative to this initiative should be directed to Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP, 1415 L Street, Suite 1200, Sacramento, CA 95814; Attention: Steve Lucas {telephone: 415!389-6800). Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Susan S1-Lartt, Proponent - Enclosure: Proposed Initiative 0 7- 0 0 1 8 May 10, 2007 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Attorney General 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator ~,CEI Vi~p MAY 1 42007 INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Re: Request for Title and Summary- Initiative Constitutional Amendment Dear Mr. Brown: I am one of the proponents of the attached initiative constitutional amendment. Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(d) of the California Constitution and Section 9002 of the Elections Code, I hereby request that a title and summary be prepared. Enclosed is a check for $200.00. My residence address is attached. I also withdraw Initiative No. 07-0006. All inquires or correspondence relative to this initiative should be directed to Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP, 1415 L Street, Suite 1200, Sacramento, CA 95814; Attention: Steve Lucas (telephone: 415/389-6800). Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Kenneth llis, Proponent Enclosure: Proposed Initiative 0- 0 0 1 8 TITLE: This measure shall be known as the "Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act." SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND INTENT By enacting this measure, the people of California hereby express their intent to: A. Protect their homes from eminent domain abuse. B. Prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private owner or developer. C. Amend the Califomia Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the home of a Connecticut woman for the purpose of economic development. ll. Respect the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare. E. Provide additional protection for property owners without including provisions, such as those in Proposition 90, which subjected taxpayers to liability for the enactment of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfaze. F. Maintain the distinction in the Califomia Constitution between Section 19, Article I, which establishes the law for eminent domain, and Section 7, Article XI, which establishes the law for legislative and administrative action to protect the public health, safety and welfare. G. Provide a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the Califomia Constitution to compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local govemments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2: AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read Sec. 19. (a) Private property maybe taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt telease to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. (b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person. (c) Subdivision (b) of this Section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety. (d) Subdivision (b) of this Section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a Public work or improvement. (e) For the purpose of this Section: 1. "Conveyance" means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift, franchise, or otherwise. 2. "Local government" means any city, including a charter city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision within the State. 3. "Owner-occupied residence" means real property that is improved with a single family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners' principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local gQVernment's initial written offer to purchase the property. Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or detached from such a single family residence which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. 4. "Person"means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company. "Public work or improvement" means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the Public work or improvement. 6. "State" means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments. SECTION 3. By enacting this measure, the voters do not intend to change the meaning of the terms in subdivision (a) of Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, including, without limitation, "taken," "damaged," "public use," and "just compensation," and deliberately do not impose any restrictions on the exercise of power pursuant to Section 19, Article I, other than as expressly provided for in this measure. 2 SECTION 4. The provisions of Section 19, Article I, together with the amendments made by this initiative, constitute the exclusive and comprehensive authority in the California Constitution for the exercise of the power of eminent domain and for the payment of compensation to property owners when private property is taken or damaged by state or local government. Nothing in this initiative shall limit the ability of the Legislature to provide compensation in addition to that which is required by Section 19 of Article I to property owners whose property is taken or damaged by eminent domain. SECTION 5. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before the date on which this initiative becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain was adopted on or before 180 days after that date. SECTION 6. The words and phrases used in the amendments to Section ] 9, Article I of the Califomia Constitution made by this initiative which are not defined in subdivision (d), shall be defined and interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the law in effect on January 1, 2007 and as that law maybe amended or interpreted thereafter. SECTION 7. The provisions of this measure shall be liberally construed in furtherance of its intent to provide homeowners with protection against exercises of eminent domain in which an owner-occupied residence is subsequently conveyed to a private person. SECTION 8. The provisions of this measure are severable. If any provision of this measure or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shat] not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SECTION 9. In the event that this measure appears on the same statewide election ballot as another initiative measure or measures that seek to affect the rights of property owners by directly or indirectly amending Section 19, Article I of the Califomia Constitution, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of af£rmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and each and every provision of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.