HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-20-09 Packet - SpecialApril 20, 2009
5:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
2. ACTION ITEM
a. Approval of Comment Letter from Council regarding CRA Trail Project
Guidelines for Design, Construction Safety, Operations and Maintenance.
3. WORK STUDY SESSION
a. Review all Items to be discussed with the Mendocino County Board of
Supervisors at the special meeting to be held on'April 21, including:
® Ukiah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee/Nexus Study
® Tax Sharing Agreement Between the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino
® Proposed Court Facility by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
5. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 24 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or
interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to
reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request.
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for
public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 5:00 pm
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the
bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than
24 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2009.
Linda Brown, City Clerk
Item 2a
4/20/09
Date
North Coast Railroad Authority
Mitch Stogner, Executive Director
C/o Heather Lindsteadt
419 Talmage Road, Suite M
Ukiah CA 95482
FAX 707-463-3282
Re NCRA Trail Project Guidelines
Dear Mr. Stogner and members of the NCRA Board of Directors,
We appreciate this opportunity to submit comments on the NCRA's proposed "Trail
Project on the NWP Line Rights-of-Way: Design, Construction, Safety, Operations and
Maintenance Guidelines".
Our comments are made in light of conversations with members of our community as
Ukiah City Council members. People have regularly expressed a desire for a rail trail, or
rail with trail. Our community's frustration with poor infrastructure for non-motorized
users could be greatly reduced if we were creative in planning the best use for the un-used
transportation corridor through the middle of the valley.
Our support for a renewed rail project would be dependant upon a realistic and achievable
multi use plan. It seems that the current proposed guidelines, intentionally or
unintentionally, exclude the possibility of trails along the corridor.
In addition what's needed is a new, more realistic, approach to setback guidelines. Setback
guidelines should reflect the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration "Lessons Learned" comments. The Department of Transportation even
notes on their website:
"Researchers attempted to determine if narrower setback distances have a direct correlation to safety
problems. However, based on the almost nonexistent record of claims, crashes, and other problems on any
RWTs, they were unable to determine a correlation between setback distance and trail user safety".
In fact, the US DOT and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy have documented more than 61
rails-with-trails throughout the United States with excellent safety records where setback
distances are much less than those proposed by the NCRA Draft Guidelines. These best
practice documents do not recommend prescribed trail setbacks and safety barriers for all
situations, but instead call for an analysis and determination based on the unique conditions
within each segment that is proposed for construction.
DOT further recommendations state that, "Because of the lack of consensus on acceptable setback
distances, the appropriate distance must be determined on a case-by-case basis (see Figure 5.10). Trail
planners should incorporate into the feasibility study analysis an analysis of technical factors, including:
➢ Type, speed, and frequency of trains in the corridor;
➢ Separation technique;
➢ Topography;
➢ Sight distance;
➢ Maintenance requirements; and
➢ Historical problems.
Revising the new guidelines to incorporate flexibility and national best practices for rails
with trails makes sense for every party concerned. As a publicly owned resource it is
imperative that the corridor be managed to allow the greatest achievable public benefit.
The many examples of rails and trails successfully co-existing in many other jurisdictions
pave the way for NCRA to approve a plan that builds trails along the corridor.
Thank you again for your consideration and the opportunity that you have made available
for local residents, organizations and governments to provide the NCRA with input to the
Draft Rails with Trails Guidelines.
Respectfully,
Phil Baldwin
Mayor
Benj Thomas
Vice Mayor
Doug Crane
Council Member
Mary Anne Landis
Council Member
Mari Rodin
Council Member
CITY OF UKIAH, COUNCILMEMBERS
Cc: U.S. Representative Mike Thompson, P.O. Box 2208 Fort Bragg, CA 95437
U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey, 1101 College Avenue Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95404
State Senator Patricia Wiggins, 200 South School Street P.O. Box 785 Ukiah, CA 95482
State Senator Mark Leno, Marin Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive Suite 425 San Rafael, CA 94903
State Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro, 311 N. State Street Ukiah, CA 95482
State Assembly Member Noreen Evans, 50 D Street, Suite 301 Santa Rosa, CA 95404
State Assembly Member Jared Huffman, Marin Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 412
San Rafael, CA 94903
Mendocino County Supervisors, 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1090 Ukiah, CA 95482
Humboldt County Supervisors, 825 Fifth Street, Room 111 Eureka, CA 95501
Sonoma County Supervisors, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2887
Mariri County Supervisors, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #329 San Rafael, CA 94903
Mendocino Council of Governments board of directors, 367 N. State street, suite 206
Ukiah, CA 95482
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO AND
THE CITY OF UKIAH REGARDING THE SHARING OF SALES TAX
REVENUE
This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of Ukiah,
County of Mendocino this day of 2009
("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Ukiah, a general law
municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and the County of
Mendocino, a political subdivision of the State of California,
(hereinafter "County").
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to foster a relationship
that will allow for the attraction, retention and renovation of
businesses without the impediment of jurisdictional financial
concerns; and
B. WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to develop a model for
revenue sharing that may be applied in other cities within the
COUNTY; and
C. WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY fiscal incentives and revenue
distribution should encourage a compact pattern of land
development; and
D. WHEREAS, neither COUNTY nor CITY should promote land
. use policies that impose fiscal losses on the other; and
E. WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to promote the.,CITY's_ Deleted: ages
and.000NTY's visioning process by advancing principles of _ Deleted: county
equitable revenue allocations that will remove fiscal
considerations from land use decisions and encourage
compact urban development that promotes redevelopment of
blighted areas, infill development, and development of
affordable housing; and
F. WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY enter this Agreement as
the first step in addressing the future annexation of
urbanized areas in the Ukiah Valley which logically should
be served by the CITY, and contemplate that they will enter
additional agreements needed to annex those areas, such
as, but not limited to, a property tax sharing agreement. iL__
NOW, THEREFORE, COUNTY and CITY hereby agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The facts set forth in the foregoing recitals are true
and are hereby incorporated into this Agreement.
2. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
(a) "Adjusted Base Year Revenue" means the reduced
level of the COUNTY's or CITY's Base Tax Revenue
proportionate to the amount of Base Tax Revenue that is
attributed to each party.
(b) "Base Tax Revenue" means the amount of Sales Tax
Revenue collected within the COUNTY and the CITY from
taxable sales occurring on the Property in the Base Year.
(c) "Base Year" means calendar year 2008.
(d) "Property" means the area within the unincorporated
portion of the COUNTY and within the CITY depicted and
described on the attached Exhibit A.
(e) "Sales Tax Revenue" means the revenue from the
sales and use tax levied and received by the CITY and
COUNTY pursuant to the "Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales
and Use Tax Law" or any successor statutory provision that is
collected from taxable sales occurring on the (Property, but
excluding any sales tax above the uniform statewide rate which
additional tax is imposed by a party within its jurisdiction as
authorized by state law.
Comment'[ZP1]: Phis vr,s not
discussed except to say that this
aereement is outside of amnczalinn
discussions and that when m111eNation
proceeds this agreemcm would bo
rcvlewed-
There were committee members that
spccificglly waated to untie tlicse issues.
Comment (=23: what about thre '/z
cent City salesd tax? Need to clarify
whether tax means the amount imposed
on taxabled sales or the amount actually
collected. If collected, what is the timing
of tax receipts. When does the City or
County know the total amount collected
for sales within a taxable year?
3. General Purpose of Agreement. The general purpose of this
Agreement is to devise a fair and equitable sharing of the
Sales Tax Revenue generated from businesses operating now
or in the future within the unincorporated territory of COUNTY
or within the territorial limits of CITY as well as to set forth the
intention of the CITY and COUNTY to cooperate regarding the
process of land use development within the territories of both
entities.
4. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon its
approval by the governing bodies of each party and shall
remain in effect until terminated by mutual consent of both the
CITY and the COUNTY or in the event of the unilateral
termination by either party. In the event of the unilateral
termination by a party, the terminating party shall repay to the
other, prior to termination, an amount equaling all Sales Tax
Revenue which would have otherwise accrued [received by?]
to the non-terminating party but for this Agreement, together
with interest thereon at the rate of 6% simple annual interest.~_
5. Share of Revenues During each calendar year, commencing
on January 1, 2009, all Sales Tax Revenues above the Base
Year Revenues collected by either party from taxable sales
occurring on the Property will be shared fifty percent (50%) by
each party. Should revenues fall below the Base Year
Revenues for either party, then the party experiencing the
Adjusted Base Year Revenues shall not make any contribution
to the other party. If the Adjusted Base Year Revenues for one
party or both parties continue for three (3) successive years,
then commencing at the beginning of the fourth (4t") year a
new Base Year Revenue will be re-set to the prior Adjusted
Base Year.
6. Procedure for allocation of Sales Tax Revenue The
Sales Tax Revenue is collected by the Sate Board of
Equalization and remitted to the COUNTY and CITY on a
quarterly basis. On and after the effective date of this
Agreement, COUNTY and CITY shall, on a,quarterly basis,
determine and pay the net amount each party owes the other
pursuant to this Agreement.[
Comment [ZP3]: We had spelled out
the "territones" as the zip codes of
94518, 95481, 95482 (Ukiah, Tahncdge
and Calpella) in case houndaries changed
due to development. The street addtcss
ranges that the citx and county p nvr(A
to Mu uScrvices would serve the sane
ftlnetletl in dctConinmg areas
How new busiue-s districts and sweet
address ranges are to be fnnvarded to
NluniServices and whe does that in
ensuing years was not deterntiacd.
Comment [ZP4]: Whl «ould you do
that' first, if either party terminates it.
should he allowed with ample notice but
no reimbursement would be in play. We
had discussed that each party would have
to provide ample notice for budgeting
purposes and had said that would he each
January but would not take effect until
the July of tlic following year (example
notice 1/31/09 but in effect 7/1/10
eighteen months later)- W, never talked
about haying interest reimbursed
Comment [ZP51: Actually, we had
discussed that this happen semi-annually
(May and Nov or,Jan and Jul) to Leap the
administration at it minimum;
distributions are generally made by the
state six weeks in artears,
Mm11SCMces has the contract to
calculate both the city and county sales
taN that does not include the cm, half-rit
share (or shouldn't).
What this agreement does not address is
this post- or prc-ERAP and BOE
administrative fees'
Lastly, we thought since it third party v,as
actually calculating revenues or verifying
them; then the nccd for audits would be
reduced to every three years-
7. Exchange of Information. Three months after the calendar
quarter during which the Sales Tax Revenue was actually
generated, the parties shall inform each other of the amount of
Excess Sales Tax Revenue each owes the other for the
subject quarter. Upon receipt of this information from the other
party, each party shall offset the amount the other party owes it
against the amount that it owes the other party, to determine
the net excess amount that is owed by one party to the other
party (the "Net Quarterly Payment"). The Net Quarterly
Payment shall be due from the owing party at the end of the
month which is four months after the calendar quarter during
which the Sales Tax Revenue was actually generated. The Net
Quarterly Payments schedule shall be consistent with the
following chart:'[---------
Quarter
1St Qrt.
2nd Qtr.
3`d. Qtr
4th Qtr.
Collection Period Payment Due
Jan-March
April-June
July-Sept
Oct-Dec
July 31St
October 31St
January 31St
April 30th
9. 'Cost Recovery. The parties agree that in the event either party
chooses to incur costs to attract or retain a business or multiple
businesses that would, or currently produce Sales Tax Revenue to
both parties, the party desiring to incur such costs or provide such
financial assistance (the "providing party") may request the other
party (the "reimbursing party") to reimburse such costs, in whole or in
part, in accordance with this section. Such costs may include, but are
not limited to, costs for construction of infrastructure, and permitted
direct financial assistance for construction of necessary infrastructure
or renovations ("reimbursable expenses").
(a) During the term of this Agreement, either CITY or COUNTY shall
notify the other in writing of its intention to incur costs for which that
party seeks reimbursement from the other party. The providing party
shall submit to the other party a Reimbursement Agreement
consistent with the exemplar set forth in Exhibit B, (We have to
develop) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
and shall provide the other party with all requested documentation
Comment [ZP6]: This assumes that
steffhas the time to do this yuartci ly
when the subcommittee felt that semi-
annually was ample. We left this up to tha
Auditor and Finance Director to work out
administratively after the governing.
boards approved it.
Comment [WR7]: Has this been
discussed by the Committee?
regarding the amount or value of such costs or financial assistance.
The parties agree to negotiate in good faith to reach agreement on
the amount or value of such costs or financial assistance that the pro
viding party seeks reimbursement for. Neither party shall be required
to agree to reimburse such costs.
(b) Negotiations shall include, but are not limited to,
the following issues:
(1) Whether the entire scope of the proposed expenses are
reasonable and necessary to attract or retain the subject Business;
(2) Whether there are less expensive alternatives available;
(3) By how much future Sales Tax Revenue (i) is expected to
increase for the reimbursing party if the expenditure is made by the
providing party, taking into account the timing of these revenue
streams; or (ii) is expected to decrease for the reimbursing party if the
proposed expenditure is not made by providing party, taking into
account the timing of these revenue streams. The parties shall
provide appropriate documentation to support their contentions;
(4) Whether the amount agreed upon to be reimbursed will be
adjusted to cover unexpected cost-overruns;
(5) Whether any expenditures made by the providing party prior to
approval by the reimbursing party ("Early Expenditures") will be
reimbursed, taking into consideration the necessity of making the
Early Expenditure; and
(6) Whether there should be a maximum amount of cumulative
unpaid reimbursement amount ("reimbursement ceiling") that will be
permitted to accumulate for each party.
(c) Upon determination of the amount of reimbursement, such
amount may be recovered by the providing party, if both parties
agree.
(d) If the parties fail to enter an agreement as a result of the
negotiations, and a development proceeds without reimbursement by
the reimbursing party to the providing party for its actual expenditures
for the reimbursable expenses, the reimbursing party's share of tax
revenues attributable to the development on that Property shall be
reduced by the reimbursable expenses actually incurred by the
providing party plus interest on that amount from the date expended
until reimbursed from the reimbursing party's share of those tax
revenues at a rate 10% simple annual interest.1_
10. Dispute Resolution. a) Inadmissibility. Should any disputes
arise as to the performance of this Agreement, COUNTY and CITY
agree to use the dispute resolution process set forth
below. All conduct, testimony, statements or other evidence made or
presented during the meeting described in subsection 10(b) shall be
confidential and inadmissible in any subsequent arbitration
proceedings brought to prove liability for any claimed breach or
damages which are the subject of the dispute resolution process.
(b) Initiation of Process. COUNTY or CITY may initiate the dispute
resolution process by submitting written notification to the other of a
potential dispute concerning the performance of this Agreement. This
written notification shall state what is in dispute, shall include all
supporting documentation, and shall request a meeting
between the County Executive Officer and the City Manager, or their
respective designees, to determine whether a resolution of the
disagreement is possible without third party intervention. This
meeting shall be scheduled to take place within forty (40) days of
receipt of the written notification of the dispute. At the meeting, the
respective representatives of the COUNTY and the CITY shall
attempt to reach an equitable settlement of the disputed issue(s),
subject to review and approval by the Board of Supervisors and the
City Council
(c) Binding Arbitration. If the meeting and subsequent review by the
parties' governing bodies provided for in subsection 10(b) fails to fully
resolve the dispute, the matter may then be submitted by either party
to the American Arbitration Association ("Arbitrator") to appoint a
single, neutral arbitrator for a decision. The arbitration shall be
conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 1282) of Title 9 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure. The Arbitrator's decision shall be based on the
following factors:
(1) evidence relevant to the scope of the issue being decided;
(2) timeliness of raising the issue at hand;
(3) whether the moving party has met its burden of persuasion; and
Comment [ZP8]: No one agnecd to
this and this interest rate seems vcty high.
]n fact, the only interest rates discussed
were those of the city or county
investment pools.
More importuntly, since it is optional to
pmticipate this makes rte sen-c that you
site breed to after the foci.
(4) any other factors the Arbitrator deems appropriate. The matter
shall be heard by the Arbitrator within forty five 45 days from one
party serving a Notice of Request for Arbitration on the other party
and a final decision by the Arbitrator must be made within thirty 30
days from the day upon which the arbitration hearing is completed.
The arbitration hearing date shall be established by the Arbitrator in
accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.2. The
Arbitrator shall prepare in writing and provide to the parties factual
findings and the reasons on which the decision of the Arbitrator is
based as described in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.4 and
1283.6.The decision of the Arbitrator shall be controlling between the
CITY and the COUNTY and shall be final. Except as provided in
Code of Civil Procedure sections 1286.2 and 1286.4, neither party
shall be entitled to judicial review of the Arbitrator's decision. The
party against whom the award is rendered shall pay any monetary
award and/or comply with any other order of the Arbitrator within sixty
(60) days of the entry of judgment on the award.
(d) Costs. The parties shall share equally the Arbitrator's fees and
expenses. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and
attorney's fees and no party shall be awarded its costs, expenses, or
attorney's fees incurred in the dispute resolution process.
11. Mutual Defense of Agreement. If the validity of this Agreement
is challenged in any legal action by a party other than COUNTY or
CITY, then COUNTY and CITY agree to defend jointly against the
legal challenge and to share equally any award of costs, including
attorney's fees, against COUNTY, CITY, or both.
12. Waiver of Retroactive Recovery. If the validity of this
Agreement is challenged in any legal action, CITY and COUNTY
hereby waive any right to the retroactive recovery of any Sales Tax
Revenue transferred pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date on
which such legal action is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction.
13. Modification. The provision of this Agreement and all of the
covenants and conditions set forth herein may be modified or
amended only by a writing duly authorized and executed by both the
COUNTY and CITY.
14. Entire Agreement. With respect to the subject matter hereof
only, this Agreement supersedes any and all previous negotiations,
proposals, commitments, writings, and understandings of any nature
whatsoever between COUNTY and CITY except as otherwise rovided
herein.
15. Notices. All notices, requests, certifications or other
correspondence required to be provided by the parties to this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or
delivered by first class mail to the respective parties at the following
addresses:
COUNTY CITY XXXXX
shall be effective upon receipt or three (3) days after mailing,
whichever is earlier.
16. Approval, Consent and Agreement Wherever this Agreement
requires a party's approval, consent, or agreement, the party shall
make its decision to give or withhold such approval, consent or
agreement in good faith, and shall not withhold such approval,
consent or agreement unreasonably or without good cause.
March 27, 2009
Mr. Burt Hirschfeld, Assistant Division Director
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
RE: New Ukiah Courthouse Project - Request for Economic Opportunity
Dear Mr. Hirschfeld:
This correspondence is submitted in response to your letter dated March 3, 2009 inquiring as to
whether or not the City. of Ukiah has one or more identified economic opportunities for the new
Ukiah Courthouse project. You letter also seeks information on alternatives sites that could
accommodate a new courthouse.
Enclosed, please find our Mendocino County Courthouse Relocation Project information document.
This document provides a discussion of the history and economic importance of the Ukiah
courthouse which has been located in the City's downtown for 192 years. The document also
responds to, and provides the information you requested concerning possible alternatives sites for a
new courthouse.
The City of Ukiah strongly believes that the new courthouse should be located in downtown area
and has identified two alternative sites for consideration. The sites are situated in or adjacent to the
historic downtown and would continue to provide an important economic foundation and a cruciai
civic and social fabric for the City.
We have compiled the basic required information for these sites to elevate them for consideration.
We have also opened a discussion with affected property owners, as well as with the Ukiah City
Council/Redevelopment Agency, who has expressed an interest in exploring possible land,
economic, and/or other contributions that could greatly aid the feasibility of the project.
We will continue to generate information, interact with affected property owners, and discuss direct
and indirect contributions and incentives that the City may be in a position to offer this project. We
are committed to working with Mendocino County, the Court Executive Officer, our local citizens
and other interested persons in an effort to keep the courthouse in our historic downtown.
We look forward to an on-going dialog with your office and are positioned to provide any additional
information you may need to consider alternative sites in our downtown. Please contact Charley
Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development if you have any questions or need
additional information. Mr. Stump can be reached at (707) 463-6219 / cstumDo-cityofukiah.com.
Sincerely,
Ja a Cha ers
C`ty Manager
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
Phone# 7071463-6200 Fax# 707/463-6204 Web Address'. www.cii'yofukish.corn
cc: City Council
John Graff, ECMC
John Mayfield, NTECH
Tom Mitchell, CEO, County of Mendocino
Bob Gamble, PFM
Benjamin D. Stough, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of Mendocino County
-frity, Courthouse
1 fit!' `
1 I 1 ~ cr ~ ~ .o`er t" I ~1 ~ ~ a.kt
.
r r I t r, ~ t a ~~t
4 t
LT'S L ~ y 1 1l ~ F
i 1~1 ~.~!r-~-rl ~6t4t I € I'i +T~~ -l Tr
~"4~1 ~.4 Ir y I l~J' ''r 14 Li LL ~1~ I ~I ~ ~ ~1 ♦'l^.~.1~
r i ' , /
Introduction
In October 2008, the state legislature passed and the governor signed into law Senate
Bill 1407, which increased fees, penalties, and assessments to fund and finance up to
$5 billion in trial court facility construction throughout the state. The Judicial Council of
California subsequently adopted a list of 41 trial court capital projects in 34 counties to
be funded by the bill, which included the new courthouse in Ukiah. The existing
courthouse is severely undersized, lacks seismic integrity, and has American with
Disabilities Act issues.
Planning efforts for a new Ukiah courthouse actually began many years ago when state
officials approached the City about alternative new locations in the downtown. The
County commissioned a number of studies and approved a Justice Center Complex
Master Plan in 2006. In March 2007, Beverly Prior Architects, under contract with
Mendocino County produced a Criminal Justice Center Site Feasibility Study, which
described the site planning requirements for a justice center and identified a number of
alternative sites in the Ukiah area. As recently as February 2009, Beverly Prior
Architects produced a more detailed Site Feasibility Studyevaluating the advantages,
disadvantages, constraints, and potential regulatory and environmental ' concerns
associated with various sites. However the analysis for downtown Ukiah was similar to
the 2007 study, which focused on potential sites east of State Street unfortunately within
the Airport Approach and Departure Zone, which limits buildings to two-stories.
In March 2009, the City of Ukiah received correspondence from the Judicial Council of
California -Administrative Office of the Courts asking whether the City has one or more
identified economic opportunities for the proposed court' capital-outlay project (attached).
The Judicial Council indicated in its correspondence that its policy is to utilize a
comprehensive set of criteria which establish consistent and objective measures for
identifying site requirements for new courthouses and provide demonstrable measures
for competitive evaluation of potential courthouse sites.
The March correspondence asked the City to provide information about its potential
downtown site (or sites) including site context and location information, physical
elements, public streets, subsurface/geotechnical information, seismic
conditions/requirements, energy conservation/utilities, historic preservation/site history,
existing use, ownership and control, proximity to county justice partners and community
services.
The City, with assistance from the Mendocino County Court Administrator, and
--representation from the Judges have Identified a potential' downtown site west of State
Street outside of the Airport Approach and Departure Zone. This site represents
Alternative No. 1 and has been named the Civic Center Campus Alternative. It should
be noted that the Study Area for this alternative could be expanded to include an
adjacent Justice Building.
The second site deemed Alternative No. 2 is located east of State Street and within the
airport approach and departure zone, yet is large enough to accommodate a more linear
two-story courthouse structure and potentially a Justice Building. This site is situated on
the NCRA Railroad property and has been named The Train Deport Site Alternative.
This document provides a downtown historical context for the courthouse and discusses
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation
March 2009 2
the two Alternative sites. It also provides the information requested by Judicial Council
of California - Administrative Office of the Courts in its March 3, 2009 correspondence.
aa~ , it 'eke' t Si,} .,F.~•- . _ i
_ "Sd k a
3 2
'41- i r v, LL T I ,"fit! r :s••'~"' ' c{ i ! i ; I f
EYE t~ ~ ° r, ~ ~ P,
-71
lV`
IT!
• 1 N j ~~"'9 rte 1 i
~4 a 1~, 14 ' t ~ \ c
~ ~ €j{~ ate- ~k., Y~
d
1 ~
r
t-
i
t 1
Alternative Site No. 1 - Civic Center Campus is the three parcels outlined in Blue in the
middle of the photograph.
Alternative Site No. 2 - The Train Depot property is outlined in red.
The existing courthouse in outlined in (slue in the upper-center portion of the photo.
Downtown Ukiah
When the City of Ukiah was selected as the County seat in 1859, the block bounded by
State, Standley, Perkins, and School Streets was reserved for the courthouse. The first
courthouse was constructed later that year. Thirteen years later in 1872, a new domed
building was constructed to replace the original 1859 structure. In 1927, an annex was
added to the courthouse, and in the 1950's the 1872 courthouse was demolished and
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 3
March 2009
the current courthouse structure was built. The 1927 annex building remains as an
integral' part of the courthouse, and is a particularly handsome public building.
The Mendocino County courthouse operations have been located in downtown Ukiah for
150 years. It is a major economic engine that draws hundreds of people into the
downtown of a'daily basis to serve on juries, work, shop, eat, etc. The downtown has
depended on this daily influx of people as a foundation to economic vitality for 150 years.
Accordingly, the City Council, business community, and others have expressed a strong
desire for the courthouse to remain in the downtown area.
The Mendocino County Courthouse in Downtown Ukiah 1905
11
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation
March 2009 4
~Y
L
t s
t .
f. f
8- `sir-- r
ttF~F y
In I
r
tf'u: 3s
&y
i
t(k
9 ^
61 ~1'1 ",z a ~iz
f ~ f
The Mendocino County Courthouse in downtown Ukiah in 1938 looking northwest
from the intersection of State and Perkins Streets
The 1927 Courthouse Annex addition taken from School Street in 1999
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation
March 2009
5
I
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation
March 2009 6
Alternative Downtown Site No. I ® The Civic Center Campus
The Civic Center Campus Alternative site is identified by the arrows below. The two
northerly blocks are large enough to accommodate the courthouse with the required
yard setbacks, and would include a moderately sized public plaza on the State Street
frontage, secured parking on the Oak Street frontage, and a secured Sally Port area.
'S ( 1 7_ S
2 g' E { E i 'fy`x?ti' I~ T Y aa'a~ i F
r, Uf
:7- JAW-
r
J~ -I
_
t a s. ti _
- tI E
} ease. nP'~' e ~ _ ("f~„<
c rr ~E1 itY Yi ib + -_jJ✓'J it.
( i
i ~ f •`ii ~ f + 6 3'- ~`9 iii . L _ el _
7
w f l n
"Mm
E l fi mot{ Jt
t to x ~ ~ _ ~1i...f.< r^.: ~ - ~ ~ ~ .
+
LL
/
A
1 x4
The Civic Center Campus Alternative includes the three blocks outlined in red east of the Civic Center, Note the
existing courthouse three blocks to the north, which could serve as the Justice Building housing the District
Attorney, Public Defender, Alternative Public Defender, Probation Department, and the Grand Jury.
Downtown Ukiah courthouse Relocation 7
March 2009
School Street would be vacated between the two blocks to add additional land area.
The larger block to the south would provide either a parking lot or parking structure.
Existing adjacent public` parking to the northeast could provide additional parking
spaces, and the existing Ukiah Civic Center parking lot adjacent to the west could be
expanded to provide even more additional parking.
Site Context and Location Information
The Civic Center Campus Alternative site is situated within downtown Ukiah adjacent to
what is considered to be the historic district and the downtown plaza.' It is three blocks
south of the existing courthouse and adjacent to the City of Ukiah Civic Center.
The location provides the outstanding opportunity to create a civic neighborhood
comprised of the Courthouse, Civic Center, Veterans Hall, and Downtown Plaza, with
the backdrop of the western hills. Seminary Avenue, with its existing large landscaped
median would become the promenade providing access to civic buildings. The site
could potentially be expanded to include a Justice Building.
The Civic Center would continue to provide a terminated vista, and the backside of the
courthouse would provide a second terminated vista on School Street south of and
adjacent to the Downtown Plaza and historic Hofman House.
The civic neighborhood would meld with the historic downtown and would be walking
distance to restaurants, retail shops, offices, and the large westside residential area. It
would also be situated on State Street, and main arterial street serving the city.
Physical Elements
Physically, while the site contains a number of buildings with a variety of land uses, it is
relatively sparsely developed for being situated in the core downtown. All three blocks
contain large parking lots and a number of the existing buildings are old and in stages of
disrepair.
The section of School Street between Clay Street and Seminary Avenue would be
vacated, closed, and incorporated into the two blocks on either side. This would
increase the available square footage for development.
Residential development is limited in the study area with approximately four existing
units. There are a number of commercial businesses that would be displaced, including
-a motel, dry cleaners, internet provider, hair salon, dress shop, retail shop, and
professional offices.
Importantly, the site is situated in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility
Zone "C", which allows buildings to exceed two stories. Parcels to the east of State
Street and north of Gobbi Street are situated in the "B2 Infill" Compatibility Zone which
limits buildings to two-stories. Additionally, the "C" Zone allows densities of up to 150
people per acre, where the "B2 Infill" limits densities to 90 people per acre for non-
residential land uses.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation
March 2009
Civic Center Campus Alternative
Site Features -
- Required '
Provided
Land Area
4.5 acres '
3.65- 4.5 acres
Building Square Footage
90,000square footage
90,000 square feet
Number of Building Stories
3-4
3-4
Parking Area
141,750
120,000-140,000
Parking Spaces
405
350-400
Public Street and Alleyways
Five public streets front the study area. These include State Street (arterial), School
Street, Oak Street (major collector), Clay Street (minor collector), and Seminary Avenue.
No alleyways exist in the study area. All the adjoining public streets have the capacity to
accommodate the traffic generated by the new courthouse.
Seminary Avenue is a wide two way street with a large landscaped center median. It
would serve as primary access to the new courthouse and continue to function as a
promenade to the Ukiah Civic Center.
School Street would be terminated at Clay Street to accommodate the courthouse
structure. This street closure would provide a valuable terminated vista of the
courthouse adjacent to the downtown plaza, historic Hofman House,` and the historic
Carnegie. Library building. School street would continue south at its intersection with
Seminary Avenue.
The air photograph on the following page highlights the section of School Street that
would be closed between Clay Street and Seminary Avenue.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 9
March 2009
r,
3 j
LI
aon 5~s ns. w<
151
ell
pp y
$f
t a 8
TV,
` F 4, b "0! 2.'+,.ws Asa ¢3 q,Ju
fF ft9. pN»Yan ` T :i"'fq ~ h C H _ p
4
The arrow points to the small section of School Street that would be closed to combine the two City blocks
outlined in red, creating a 2-acre site for the courthouse structure, limited secured parking, and green space.
The third area outlined in red south of the courthouse location is one option for providing parking.
Subsurface/Geotechnical Conditions
According to the Soil Survey of Mendocino County Eastern Part and Trinity County
Southwestern Part, California, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil
Conservation Service in 1991, the soils on the subject property are classified as "Urban
Land." This map "unit" is characterized by terraces and alluvial plains at elevations
ranging from 500 to 1,400 feet IVISL (mean sea level). The subject property is situated in
a densely developed urban environment at approximately 600 feet MSL and consists of
areas covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings and other impervious surfaces.
The subject property has been densely developed for at least fifty years and surrounding
developments in the downtown area include multi-story buildings. While redevelopment
of the site and the construction of a multi-story courthouse structure and justice building
would require Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Reports, there is no
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 1®
March 2009
reason to believe that such a structure could not be successfully designed and
constructed.
Seismic Conditions/Requirements
The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region` that contains the Maacama Fault,
which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. While this fault is situated in
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as mapped by the State Division of Mines and
Geology, the subject property lying to the west and south is well outside of it and
therefore not subject to the requirements of the Act.
However, the California Building Code does require Engineering Geology and
Geotechnical Engineering Reports for large structures such as the Courthouse and
Justice Building. These highly technical reports would include seismic design
requirements and recommendations.
Historic Preservation/Site History
According to the City of Ukiah Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory Report,
prepared in 1984-1985, none of the parcels located within the study area have listed
local, State, or Federal architectural or historical resources. The Ukiah General Plan
Historical and Archaeological Resources Element does not list the designated the site as
a high probability for historic, archaeological, or cultural resources.
However, there are a number of important historic buildings in close proximity to the site
that would be enhanced as a result of the project. These include the Hofman House and
Sun House, which are both listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The
historic Prairie style Carnegie Library building (1914) is situated on a parcel adjacent to
and north of the proposed site.
,
~ Y
The 1514 Carnegie Library Building on South State Street
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 11
March 2009
P - i' ; I
l i. I'
C'I
'
fem.
The Hofman House
Energy Conservation/Utilities
The Sun House
Staff from the City electric, water and wastewater divisions have indicated that all public
utilities are available to serve the project site, including, electric, gas, cable, water and
sanitary sewer.
Future development of a Courthouse and Justice -Building would be subject to the
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 - Energy Conservation, which requires
energy conservation design and construction methods.
The City would encourage energy conservation site preparation and construction
methods not specifically required by the Building Code. These could include recycling of
demolition debris, low impact development (LID) storm water management, passive
solar building orientation, active solar heating infrastructure, low volatile organic
compound (VOC) paint and carpets, etc.
F ,r.- Z"`i
a5 1 J.
t
r
'Tit T .a k ! fP1a5t«
SO
r a F,~
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 12
March 2009
The City owns and operates its own electric utility and may be in a position to provide
incentives to the project, such as partial funding through its Public Benefits Program for
a solar voltaic array that could provide all or a portion of the electrical needs for the
project.
Infrastructure Availability
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Gas
Drainage
Streets
City - Available
City- Available
' City - Available
PG&E
Cleveland' Lane
Levels of service of all
Drainage Basin -
adjacent streets and nearby
Onsite storm water
intersections adequate to
retention (LID)
manage Courthouse traffic.
encouraged.
Storm drains
adjacent to the site.
Parcel Ownership/Control, Zoning, Size, Designations, and Existing Uses
PARCEL
OWNER
ZONING
SIZE
FLOOD
AIRPORT
REDEV
USE
002-263-03
Cavalin
C-1
5,610 sq ft
C
C Zone
Yes
Res
002-263-04
Somers
C-1
27,840
C
C Zone
Yes
Shops
002-263-07
Otto
C-1
4,335
C'
C Zone
Yes
Office
002-263-08
Otto
C-1
4,250
C
C Zone
Yes
Office/Res
002-266-01
Wu
C-1
6,840
C
C Zone
Yes
Offices
002-266-02
Persk
C-1
8,712
C
C Zone
Yes
Offices
002-266-03
Patel
C-1
23,650
C
C Zone
Yes
Motel
School Street
10,000
SUBTOTAL
Courthouse
2.01
Acres -
002-272-02
Kim
C-1
12,000
C
C Zone
Yes
Cleaners
002-272-03
Duon
C-1
12,000
C
C Zone
Yes
Shop
002-272-06
Won
C-1
5,400
C
C Zone
Yes
Office
002-272.07
Davis
C-1
6,600
C
C Zone
Yes
Office
002-272-13
Jordan
C-1
5,400
C
C Zone
Yes
Office
002-272-15
Cruse
C-1
23,400
C
C Zone
Yes
Shop/Res
002-272-18
Waterman
C-1
6,600 "
C
C'Zone
Yes
Offices
SUBTOTAL
Parking
1.64
Acres
TOTAL
AREA
3.65
Acres
Proximity to County Justice Partners and Community Services
Currently, the courthouse and criminal justice departments are dispersed throughout the
City. Building a new courthouse structure in the proposed Civic Center Campus location
would allow the existing courthouse to temporarily or permanently function as the Justice
Building housing the District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender,
Probation, and the Grand Jury - three blocks from the new courthouse. These two
structures would anchor the historic downtown on the north and south, and provide a
dominate economic catalyst for the local business community. Alternatively, a new
Justice Building could be planned on a site adjacent to the new courthouse site and
constructed when funding becomes available.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation ) 3
March 2009
Community service partners and County Social Services are also dispersed throughout
the City, but most are situated in close proximity to the historic downtown. The County
Social Services Complex is located approximately four blocks to the south of the new
courthouse location.
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The existing courthouse and the proposed Civic Center Campus site is designated as
"C" (Commercial) on the Ukiah General Plan land use map and classified as "C-1"
(Community Commercial) on the Ukiah zoning map. Professional offices and land uses
involving assemblages of people are permitted in this zoning district, and therefore a
new courthouse would be consistent with the "C" designation and "C-1" classification.
The City could redesignate and rezone the site to "P" (Public) and "P-F" (Public
Facilities), but it would not be required by law. There are many County/public owned
and used buildings within the City limits that are zoned "C-1" and are considered
consistent with the General Plan and purpose and intent of the zoning district.
Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area
The Civic Center Campus site is located within the adopted Ukiah Redevelopment
Agency Area, which could potentially participate financially in the project.
Redevelopment Agency N
A
Legend
Redevelopment-Agency
UWah City Limits
Parcels-4-04
)J
Feet
0 7001,4D0 2,600 4,200 5,600
>r
z~€ ( LG
I 1
-S _
Pnd
~ I h\Et1iuE 1
l
GaF,R
- I I
~ 'i
` GSn~nLe
_ o
E4
pl nfl°c Et ~ ~«F1y~11
CG - ~ 1 ``11y
1 41L 4IVE.. G I I I''I[pl
L
'I ~`IG_EPVENUF.
"iTMg r Sono °HA49 _
- ~L
t r
i
9 N 1^
r ~ 'm
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 14
March 2009
The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency is discussing possible participation in the courthouse
relocation project. This participation could include financial support, dedication of land
for parking, electrical utility assistance, and other means for providing economic
participation.
Summary of Opportunities for the Civic Center Campus Alternative Site
The Civic Center Campus Alternative site offers a number of positive opportunities.
These include:
1. The site is situated within the City's adopted Redevelopment Agency Area,
allowing for possible City participation in the project
2. Historic Downtown location - 3 blocks from old courthouse, adjacent to the Civic
Center, adjacent to Plaza, adjacent to State Street., in close proximity to
Mendocino County Social services Complex.
3. Old courthouse becomes available to function as a Justice Building -
dramatically reducing County funding obligations.
4. The site is within the new downtown zoning district (form based code) area,
which would provide site planning and design flexibility.
5. The property is approximately twice the size of current courthouse site and
provides 3.65 to 4.5 acres for the building and adjacent parking.
6. The site is outside the restrictive airport compatibility zone and therefore a three
to four story building is possible.
7. The site appears large enough to accommodate the prototype courthouse
dimensions and associated parking.
8. The building would create a School Street terminated vista.
9. There is existing public parking in close proximity to this site to supplement
courthouse parking needs.
10. If a parking structure is proposed, there is the potential for a partnership with the
City RDA and interested private sector - ground floor retail in parking structure
along Seminary Avenue frontage.
11. A parking structure would provide shared public parking for downtown and
support local businesses.
12. There are a limited number of affected buildings on the site - and a limited
number of residential structures.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 15
March 2009
Alternative Downtown Site No. 2
The Train Depot Property
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 16
March 2009
Alternative Downtown Site o0 2 ® The tram Deport Site
The Train Depot Alternative site is identified by the arrows below. The approximate 15
acre parcel is large enough to accommodate the courthouse with the required yard
setbacks, the required, parking spaces, a public plaza, secured parking, and a Justice
Building.
Y
iLLIL
-F" T
1
j ` t j
i
STN R IL DAD DEPOT of
BUILUNG
L
{ k t 4
r ra
r.
3
The Train Depot alternative site is large, mostly vacant and under one ownership. It is
situated within walking distance to the historic downtown and is in close proximity to
retail shops, restaurants, professional offices and medical facilities.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 17
March 2009
Site Context and Location Information
The Train Depot Alternative site is situated east of and adjacent to historic downtown
Ukiah. It is approximately the same distance from the existing courthouse as the Civic
center Campus alternative and adjacent to both the Perkins Street Gateway and railroad
tracks.
The location provides the opportunity to create a strong civic space along the primary
street entrance into the downtown, which is underdeveloped and prime for
redevelopment. The site is large enough to accommodate the courthouse and justice
building, as well as the required open space and parking. The buildings would be limited
to two-stories because of the airport approach and departure zone, but with the large
amount of land, the building footprints could be enlarged to accommodate the required
square footage.
The site is located within walking distance to the downtown, medical offices and hospital,
regional shopping opportunities, and restaurant, and is located on a major transportation
corridor.
Physical Elements
Physically, the site is mostly vacant with the exception of the historic train deport, and
two older warehouse buildings. Gibson Creeks traverses the northern portion of the site
from west to east, and along with the small city park in this area of the property, would
provide an outstanding open space feature.
Access to the site would be provided from Perkins Street from the north, Leslie Street
from the east, and potentially Clay Street from the west. The railroad tracks are
adjacent to the west, and could provide additional access and/or a transportation
alternative in the future.
There is no residential development on the site, but a mix of housing types exist in close
proximity. A mobile home park is located on the parcel adjacent to the south and low,
medium and high density residential developments are located to the east across Leslie
Street. Commercial development is located across Perkins Street to the north, as well
as to the west.
The site is situated in the Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone "B2 Infill",
which limits buildings to two stories and densities of 90-people per acre. However, given
the large size of the site, it appears likely that a Courthouse and Justice Building project
could be designed and constructed in compliance with these restrictions.
Portions of the site are within the "A" (100-year) FEMA flood zone and portions are in the
"B" (500-year) flood zone. These flood zones are the result of Gibson creek flowing
through the northern part of the site. In order to develop these portions of the property,
buildings would need to be elevated. While not necessarily required, the streets,
driveways and parking areas should also be elevated to some degree.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 1$
March 2009
Train Depot Alternative
Site Features
Required Courthouse & JB
Provided
Land Area
8.5 acres
+15 acres
Building Square Footage
147,600 square footage
+200,000 square feet
Number of Building Stories
3-4
2
Parking Area
207,900 square feet
+250,000 square feet
Parkin Spaces
594
+700
Public Street and Alleyways
Three public streets front the study area. These include East Perkins Street (arterial),
Leslie Street, and Clay Street.- No alleyways exist in the study area. All the adjoining
public streets have the capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the new
courthouse.
The railroad crossing at Clay Street has not been used in the recent past. The City's
past position has been that the crossing was never formally abandoned and is still valid.
Subsurface/Geotechnical Conditions
According to the
Southwestern Part California, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil
Conservation Service in 1991, the soils on the subject property are classified as "Urban
Land." This map "unit" is characterized by terraces' and alluvial plains at elevations
ranging from 500 to 1,400 feet MSL (mean sea level). The subject property is situated in
a densely developed urban environment at approximately 600 feet MSL and consists of
areas covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings and other impervious surfaces.
There is known soil contamination on the eastern portion of the site. Preliminary studies
reveal that contaminated soil would likely have to be removed for geotechnical
construction requirements, which would add costs to the project.
Seismic Conditions/Requirements
The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault,
which traverses the valley to the east and north of the City. While this fault is situated in
an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as mapped by the State Division of Mines and
Geology, the subject property lying to the west and south is well outside of it and
therefore not subject to the requirements of the Act.
However, the California Building Code does require Engineering Geology and
Geotechnical Engineering Reports for large structures such as the Courthouse and
Justice Building. These highly technical reports would include seismic design
requirements and recommendations.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 19
March 2009
Historic Preservation/Site History
According to the City of Ukiah Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory Report,
prepared in 1984-1985, the Train Deport building is a'significant historical resource. The
colonial revival style building was constructed in 1929.
4
`R r f
K
r
nl
~r
~
'
The train depot in the 1930's
Energy Conservation/Utilities
Staff from the City electric, water and wastewater divisions have indicated that all public
utilities are available to serve the project site, including, electric, gas, cable, water and
sanitary sewer.
Future development of a Courthouse and Justice Building would' be subject to the
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 - Energy Conservation, which requires
energy conservation design and construction methods.
The City would encourage energy conservation site preparation and construction
methods not specifically required by the Building Code. These could include recycling of
demolition debris, low impact development (LID) storm water management, passive
solar building orientation, active solar heating infrastructure, low volatile organic
compound (VOC) paint and carpets, etc.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 20
March 2009
The City owns and operates its own electric utility and
incentives to the project, such as partial funding through
a solar voltaic array that could provide all or a portion
project.
Infrastructure Availability
may be in a position to provide
h its Public Benefits Program for
of the electrical needs for the
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Gas
Drainage
Streets
City - Available
City- Available
City - Available
PG&E
On-site LID storm
Levels of service of all
water retention
adjacent streets and nearby
encouraged
intersections adequate to
manage Courthouse traffic.
Parcel Ownership/Control, Zoning, Size, Designations, and Existing Uses
PARCEL
OWNER
ZONING
SIZE
FLOOD
AIRPORT
REDEV
USE
002-232-12
NWP
C-1
6.31 acres
A and B
B2 Infill
Yes
Vacant
002-232-13
NCRA
C-1
4.49 acres
A andB
B2 Infill
Yes
Vacant
002-282-18
NWP
C-1
2.29 acres`
A and B
B2 Infill
Yes
Vacant
002-28-19
NCRA
C-1
1.83 acres
A and B
B2 Infill
Yes
Vacant
TOTAL
AREA
15.42
acres
Proximity to County Justice Partners and Community Services
Currently, the courthouse and criminal justice departments are dispersed throughout the
City. Building a new Courthouse and Justice Building structure on the proposed Train
Depot location would provide a complex containing the Court functions, District Attorney,
Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, Probation, and the Grand Jury to be located
in the location: It would also allow the County to utilize the existing courthouse for other
County functions or to sell it to assist in the financing of the new Justice Building.
Community service partners and County Social Services are also dispersed throughout
the City, but most are situated in close proximity to the historic downtown.
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The existing courthouse and the proposed Civic Center Campus site is designated as
"C" (Commercial) on the Ukiah General Plan land use map and classified as "C-1"
(Community Commercial) on the Ukiah zoning map. Professional offices and land uses
involving assemblages of people are permitted in this zoning district, and therefore a
new courthouse would be consistent with the "C" designation and "C-1" classification.
The City could redesignate and rezone the site to "P" (Public) and "P-F" (Public
Facilities), but it would not be required by law. There are many County/public owned
and used buildings within the City limits that are zoned "C-1" and are considered
consistent with the General Plan and purpose and intent of the zoning district.
Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area
The Civic Center Campus site is located within the adopted Ukiah Redevelopment
Agency Area, which could potentially participate financially in the project.
Downtown Ukiah courthouse Relocation 21
March 2009
Redevelopment Agency
~
F
J J
G-.~ez--.)t_
I
0
J
FOE3C518 ~T ~
"~-~FF 1 V~I~
.
LE
I L
I~~ 1
BYO Ef TE-➢AI\'[_
~
~
na
T
A
, I
l
ft
I S
-
E EE) M ,4.$T U
F
l
E
U '%U ,HGc FDAAO PIAF1,Ci
i N~
i
i
9 In d
I S A ~ Ir
-
-
-
L~
I s
~
~iI
,
,
Legend
J f7
RedevalopmenL.Aaency
its '
L
Uki
h Cit
i
L-
I
J ~
?
- -
.
a
y L
m
C1 Parcels-4-0Q 1
1
,
1!I~r
`0 7061,400 $960 4,250 5,666
A
The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency is discussing possible participation in the courthouse
relocation project. This participation could include financial support, dedication of land
for parking, electrical utility assistance, and other means for providing economic
participation.
Summary of Opportunities for the Train Depot Alternative Site
The Train Depot Alternative site l offers' a number of positive opportunities. These
include:
1. The site is situated within the City's adopted Redevelopment Agency Area,
allowing for possible City participation in the project
2. Adjacent to and within walking distance from the Historic Downtown
3. The site is within the new downtown zoning district (form based code) area,
which would provide site planning and design flexibility.
4. The property' is large and could easily accommodate a new two-story
Courthouse, two-story Justice Building, all required parking, Gibson Creek
restoration, and open space.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 22
March 2009
5. The site is largely vacant with no residential structures.
6. The small historic Ukiah train depot building is located on the site, which would
add a charming amenity and destination attraction.
7. The site is in close proximity to restaurants, retail opportunities, professional
offices, and the Ukiah Valley Medical Center.
8. The site is located on a major transportation corridor and the NWP railroad right-
of-way.
9. The four-parcel site is under two ownerships, rather than multiple ownerships,
potentially making it easier to seek acquisition or use of the property.
10. The property represents a prime infill site and all utilities and public services are
available to serve the site.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 23
March 2009
Attachment I
March 3, 2009 Correspondence
From the Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
ML UF,
v Ffy a
far
74zt
Tubidrrtrtlrrzsrzt
ADL41NIISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
OFFICE OF COURT CONSTRUCTION ARD MANAGEMENT
455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Frattcisco, California 94102-3688
Telephone 415.865.4940 • Fax 41M658885 - TDD 415-86542172
RONALD M. GEORGE
Chirf ji Orx of California
Chairof dirJudidal61tudl
March 3, 2009
Ms. Cathleen Moller
Economic Development Manager
Redevelopment Agency
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95452
RE: New Uldah Courthouse Protect: l eguest for.Ecuitomic Opportunity
Dear Ms. Moller
WILLIAM C. V1CKKEY
Admin smariuc Director of the Cnp,
RONALD G. OVERHOLT
Chief pcpiity Dircum
LEE WILLOUGHBY
Director. Office df Qurt
Gawnwdon and Managemem
As you may know, in October 2008 the state legislature passed and the governor signed into law
Senate Bill 1407 (Perata), which increases fee, penalties, and assessments to fund and finance up
to $5 billion in trial court facility constriction throughout the state. The Judicial Council of
California subsequently adapted a list of 41 trial court capital projects in 34 counties to be
funded by the Bill, which includes the addition of the new courthouse in Ukiah:
The Administrative office. of the Courts (A0Q, the staff organization to the Judicial Council,
intends to initiate these projects as rapidly as possible. While Judicial Council policy requires a
competitive site selection process, timing of project implementation will depend, in part, on the
economic opportunities associated with each project. Economic opportunities include financial
contributions, land donations, or reduced cost land acquisitions.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 24
March 2009
The purpowof this letter is to determine whether the City has one or more identified
economic opportunities for the proposed court capital-outlay project.
We have identified the prelfininary site size requirements for the proposed capital-outlay project
based on the number of courtrooms to be provided in the project. From this, we have
approximated the size of the property required to accom odate the project to be in the range of
botween 4.5 and 55 acres, assuming a regularly shaped lot before setbacks and excluding open
space allocations. As the project develops; some adjustments to the size and site area for the
project may be made.
Also, at this stage of the project, the geographic boundaries for the site can be assumed to be
those of the incorporated city limits.
It is Tudicial Council policy to utilize a comprehensive set of criteria which establish consistent
and objective measures for idenixfying site requirements for new courthouses and provide
demonstrable Measures for competitive evaluation ofpotential courthouse sites.
Site selection criteria are tailored as necessary to take into account the particular siting
requirements of each project. For the purpose of considering responses to this solicitation; We
request you provide us with various information on the site or sites you propose, as follows:
Site Context and Location Information
Physical Elements
Public Streets and Alleyways
Subsurface/Geotechncal Conditions
Seismic Conditions/Requirements
Energy Conservation/Utilities
* Historic Preservation/Site History
Existing Use, Ownership and. Control
* Proximity to County Justice Partners
and Community Services
All responses to this letter should be seat to oecrn.ecotuoppoxtEmities ud ca.goy by March 31,
2009. Responses should tape one of the following forms:
Resolution front the governing body with jurisdiction
Letter signed by you
Should additional time be needed, please submit that request to this email address. For land
donations or reduced cost acquisitions, please provide as much site-speeiiic information
including the technical attributes listed above as possible. For financial contributions,
please state the proposed terms and condiddris of the contribution,, and the source of
funding.
Should you have any questions or require clarification, please call Akilab. Robinson at 415465-
5346 or send your inquiries to or-nitiesnalu€l.ca. s~ov.
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 25
March 2009
Thank you very much for your consideration and we look fonvard to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Burt Hirschfeld
Assistant Division Director
BH/cd
Cc: Hon. Cindee F. Mayfield, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Mendocino County
Mr, Benjamin D. Stough, Executive Officcr, Superior Court of Mendocino County
Mss. Eunice Calvert-Banks, Real Estate Manager, Administrative Office of the Court
Office of Court Construction and Management
Downtown Ukiah Courthouse Relocation 26
March 2009