City of Ukiah Response

The extension of Orchard Avenue to Brush Street relieved the traffic and made it possible to close the Orr St bridge for repairs which provided an opportunity for the WNA to seek a change in the use of the bridge. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager.) Wholly disagree . Orr Creek Bridge was closed by the City before the Orchard

CityA Cvoeunnucei lB dreidcigseio wnsa so nco Oncsttorbuecrt e6d, .2 010 and again on February 21, 2018 supported the WNA goals for bridge use but did not include formal assignments of Lead and Responsible Agencies which has resulted in long-term delays and increases in project scope and costs. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager and Community Development Director.) Partially disagree . City Council decisions may have in part supported the WNA goals for the bridge, but assignment of Lead and/or Responsible Agencies is related to and a function of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and associated regulations. This project was categorically exempt from CEQA, and although the City would be the Lead Agency for this project, this Lead Agency assignment had no

Sincbee tahrei ncglo osur rime opfa tchte o bnr dideglae yins a2n0d0/9o, rd einveclroepamseesn itn o pf rhoojuescitn sgc oapnde aan nde wco rsotsa.d rw ay on County land to the north ending abruptly at the bridge. This has accelerated the need for repairing the bridge for traffic and introduced new potential stakeholders to the project. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager and Community Development Director.) Partially disagree . While the housing projects in the county may have introduced potential stakeholders to the project, this has not influenced the timing of bridge

Projreecpt adiersla. y s caused by the change in project scope have resulted in increased costs for either repairs or alterations to the Orr Street Bridge. Bridge repair estimates in 2009 were $125,000, and in 2017 were between $300,000-$400,000. It is unknown what the costs for 2022 will be. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager and Community Development Director.) Partially disagree . While it is generally true that construction costs go up over time, due in part to uncontrollable effects such as inflation and increased costs of materials, the examples cited in this Finding represent completely different projects. The 2009 proposal was for structural bridge repair only; in 2017, the scope included potential land acquisition for appropriate vehicular access. Ultimately, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded study, “The Orr Street Bridge and Transportation Corridor Study and Plan,” plus Council’s approval will

Thed Reetgeiromnianl eR tehdew foinoadl tsrcaoilp cer oofs swinogr,k o. ne block West of Orr Street, with a pedestrian bridge over Orr Creek limits the justification for a pedestrian/bike only bridge on Orr Street. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager.) Agree.

The bridge repairs have been included in the 2019 grant application for the entire Wagenseller Neighborhood which may cause delays in construction for two to four more years. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director.) Wholly disagree. The City does not agree with this finding, as it does not accurately

Refurrebflieshctm tehnet s ocfo tphee oOfr trh Set rCeDeBt GB rgirdagnet f aopr pvelihciactlieo, np eodre tshteri parno ajencdt btiimcyecllien ter.a ffic would have met all the needs of the neighborhood residents and qualified for project exemptions under CEQA in 2009. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager and Public Works Director.) Wholly disagree. It is impossible to know if the 2009 project would have met the needs of all of the residents of WNA. The CDBG-funded study will help determine

Thet rhoooste c naeuesde sf,o ars i nita wctiilol nr eoqnu tihree binrpidugte a insd t heantg tahgee fmoceunste wd iothut tchoem nee piguhrbsuoerdh oboyd t.h e WNA requires more planning and a CEQA review which can take years to complete under normal circumstances. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director.) Wholly disagree. The generalizations in this finding are unsubstantiated in the report. Further, it has not been determined the level of CEQA review that would be

Projreecqtu dierleady.s have led to the current blighted condition of the Orr Street Bridge. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director.) Agree.

The City Council could have formally assigned this project to the Planning Department and not Public Works after accepting recommendations from a community group. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager, Community Development Director, and Public Works Director.) Partially disagree. The City Council does not typically assign workloads to specific departments. That is an administrative function, typically directed by the City Manager. Further, it would be unusual for a project making repairs or improvements to a public street to be managed by the Community Development

Th(eP Plalannnniningg) DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt .w as not informed of the line-item fund available for bridge repair/refurbishment in the City budget while managing the application for CDBG funds. (Required response by Ukiah City Council. Requested response by Ukiah City Manager and Community Development Director.) Partially disagree. Capital funding including for the Orr Bridge repair/refurbishment is identified throughout city budgetary documents and has been discuss a number of times at various City Council meetings. It is common practice to apply for grant funding for projects, even when other sources of funding may be available. Further, the line-item funding in the City budget was for construction of the project compared to the CDBG award, which was only for a planning study and no construction. According to CDBG regulations, funding awarded within the planning studies allocation cannot be used for construction activities and vice-versa. Funding for construction of the project would require a separate application to CDBG under a different type of allocation. Narrative Summary of Required/Requested Responses to Grand Jury