HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-21 Packet - SpecialCITY OF JOINTOF • AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Red -.. 200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA 95482 �'RIIIRNJI 1. Welcome and Introductions a. Roll Call (Board of Supervisors, Ukiah City Council) b. Introductory Remarks — Staff C. Introductory Remarks — Board of Supervisors Chair and Board Members d. Introductory Remarks — Ukiah City Council Mayor and Council members 2. Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Presentation by the Mendocino Council of Governments on the Ukiah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee/Nexus Study; and Possible Referral to the Public Resources Committee for Further Discussion b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Tax Sharing Agreement Between the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino C. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Proposed Court Facility by the Administrative Office of the Courts (ACC) 3. Other Business a. Public Expression b. Matters from Staff C. Other Business d. 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 MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS—AGENDA PAGE 9 OF 9 •Illpi itET • AND THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL NE, I LIVE WEB E TREMING / ® OF BOARD i�EETINGS: \ APRIL 215 2009 ® ® P.m. WWW�IA UKIAH' VALLEY CONFERENCE CENTER • 200 SO. SCHOOL STREET* UKIAH, CALIF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETS CONCURRENTLY AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE: MENDOCINO COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MENDOCINO COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION, MENDOCINO COUNTY WATER AGENCY, THE MENDOCINO COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, AND THE IHSS PUBLIC AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD AGENDAORDER OF ALL ITEMS ARE PRESENTED FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION 1`. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS ■ Roll Call (Board of Supervisors, Ukiah City Council) ■ Introductory Remarks — Staff ■ Introductory Remarks — Board of Supervisors Chair and Board Members ■ Introductory' Remarks - Ukiah City Council Mayor and Council Members 2. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: ■ Discussion and Possible Action Regarding_ Presentation by the Mendocino Council of Governments on the Ukiah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee/Nexus Study; and Possible Referral to the Public Resources Committee for Further Discussion ■ Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Draft Tax Sharing Agreement Between the City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino ■ Discussion- and Possible Action on Status of Court Facilities Planning for Mendocino County Courthouse, Funded by the JudicialCouncilof California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 3. OTHER BUSINESS: ■ Public Expression ■ Matters from Staff ■ Other Business ■ Adjournment The Board welcomes participation in the Board meetings. Comments shall be limited so that everyone may be heard. This item is limited to matters under the jurisdiction of the Board which are not on the posted agenda and items which have not already been considered by the Board. The Board limits testimony on matters not on the agenda to 3 minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes for particular subject at the discretion of the Chair of the Board. No action will be taken. - MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD AGENDA ONLiNEAGENDA SUMMARY -Electronic Agenda Transmission Checklist: Z Agenda Summary ❑ Records ❑ If applicable, list other online information below TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: April 10, 2009 FROM: Executive Office MEETING DATE: April 21, 2009 DEPT RESOURCF/CONTACT: Tom Mitchell, CEO PHONE: 463-4441 Present ® On Call Q Consent Agenda ❑ Regular AgendaZ :Noticed Public Hearing ❑ ' Time Allocated for Item: 30 min AGENDA TITLE: Discussion and:Posszble;Action regarding Presentation by the 1Iendocino'Gouncil of . Governments on the. iJkiah Valley 'Area Transportation Trnpacii Fee/Nexus Study, and Possible ;referral to the:.Public Resources- Coirirnittee f®r Further Discussion ; ■ PREVIOUS BOARD/BOARD COMMITTEE ACTIONS: June 28, 2005: Board of Supervisors Workshop discussion; July 19, 2005: Adoption of Resolution No. 05-116 to enter into agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants to prepare AB 1600 study; November 18, 2008: Presentation by Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) on the Ukiah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee/ Nexus Study • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: It is requested that the Board of Supervisors accept the presentation provided by Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) on the Ukiah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee/Nexus Study, completed September 2008, by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., (EPS) and Fehr and Peers. The Executive Office, recognizing that a collaborative effort is in the best interest of all Mendocino County constituents, is recommending that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and the Ukiah City Council members enter into dialog regarding the adoption of the necessary fees to implement the AB 1600 recommendations relative to Transportation' Impact Fees. It is also requested that the Board of Supervisors direct Executive Office staff to identify, advocate for (to include letters of support),' and pursue funding sources necessary, to implement AB 1600 projects. • SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE: W1M mendocinocog.org/reports prolects.shtml • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD (CHECKED BY COB IF APPLICABLE):❑ SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 11 1 21 1 31 1 41 1 51 1 ARM 0 VOTE REQUIREMENT: Maioritvl><] 4/5thE;l I ALTERNATIVES: Provide staff with alternative directions. CEO REVIEW (NAME): Tom Mitchell, CEO ` PHONE: 463-4441 RECOMMENDATION: Agree ® Disagree ❑ No Opinion ❑ Alternate ❑ Staff Report Attached❑ BOARD ACTION (DATE: ): ❑ Approved ❑ Referred to ❑ Other RECORDS EXECUTED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: ❑ Other Revised -01/09 I MENDOCINO PHILLIP J. Dow, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COUNCIL O OV S Telephone 707-463-1859 MCOG Fax 707-463-2212 367 North State Street -Suite 206 - Ulciah California 95482 Fax Uriah Valley Area Transportation Impact Fee Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors/ Ukiah City Council Joint Meeting April 21, 2009 1. Introduction Implementing Transportation Priorities 2. MCOG's Transportation Role Identify & Document Transportation Needs Identify Revenue Sources Plan Projects Fund Projects Program & Monitor projects 3. Funding Alternatives Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Transportation Sales Tax State Bond Programs Transportation Impact Fees 4. Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study Initial Programming in FY 06/07 Nexus Complete in 08/09 Legal Basis for Establishing Fees Now Complete 5. Next Steps (Figure 1 — Implementation Process) Agreement in Concept (form Joint Committee to develop impact fee program) Engage Development Community Resolve Issues of Joint Fee Program (Single fee, CIP implementation, fee size, waivers, exemption, fee collection & administration, etc.) Draft Ordinance & Resolution BOS & City Council Approval 6. Editorial Comments Now is Time to Act: Resolve Issues and Work Out Details Implement Fees in Concert with the Next Economic Upturn Developer Fees Permit a Higher Degree of Local Control; Reduce Dependency on Sacramento & Washington Figure 1. TIFP Study and Implementation Process 7of Fcity Mendocino County Mendocino Council of [Governments Ukiah Valley Area Plan Forecast of Buildout Potential - population - employment Proportional Allocation of Costs to New Development Draft Impact Fee Nexus Study TAC Workshop and Review of Elected Official Nexus Study Review of Nexus Study rFinalmpact Fee us Study Impact Fee Public Prepare Staff Hearing(s) Report and Recommendation Proposed Io Impact Fees by Land Use Impact Fee Implementation Strategy (e.g., Administrative Guidelines, Fee Collection Procedures, etc.) Infrastructure and Service Level Policies Infrastructure Needs Analysis (Traffic Model) TIFP Capital Project List Meet Need of New Relieve Existing Service Development Deficiency (based on traffic model) (based on traffic model) Draft Fee Ordinance and Resolution Final Approval by City of Ukiah Final Approval by Mendocino County Final Approval by Mendocino Council of Governments 2 /A) cc Mendocino Mendocino City of UkiahH County Council of Governments P:\16000s\16135 Mendocino\Report\Mendocino_fee_flow.vsd ED O C',N LL) Cl rY Cb r-. d•I O_ N N NO CD t- M co M Cl) LO CD 00 It O r O 00 00 1� cD co M 00 N LO N CO r > N Cl) O N CO O O C C� L 4C1+ p O Q O N M d• O 00 CN r � Q p C{0 t.C) 0) p N N co 0 CD N O y Q O u) LC) "t O t- c0 m O N co O 1- O �- co d; O 'IT 'IT CO �- CD d_ O It N M N d• f� r a C 1� H3 L 0 O V �t MI N N OCD 0) hI p O NO CO CO d• O O O O LO N M d: N coM m M N h N M O CO M N cli to r (L rN„ Imo. 4fl O O Z C� O N M d• O 00 CN C LL O LO N CO 00 CO LO r y Q r p O (=; O O O tm LC - 7 3W II LO CII COI CII 'R O CDID LL) LO Cl) CD ch et L r r M T <- N tD d w Q N Q O 1010 CD N moi' �- O er > O N, N 1- N M O) Cl) CO r '' (Dti O CO LL) CO CO N 6 C NNet r�0 Q 'O V OD �� O N_ LO M� M 00 00 W IF d• Lf)N C ti I- M CD e -CO `a a U r O d• ',o 67 co co ch 'd' O .0 CO CM� Con, — �P d- O M O 0 .- (V 1- Q. O Z N N O •� V Nco LL N� d W C N N m > W U s_ (D a ❑ CD 0 0 3 U) «�COE m i� m @c— m M y a r n as ? a`) �— ❑ W -5 :p Es�ca� R 3 O E 2) O N N O a "j N (p 5 (n 0= _i C7 _I Z U) O w O y I-- 18 u Planning Systems Public Finance Real Estate Economics Regional Economics Land Use Policy UKIAH VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY Prepared for: Mendocino Council of Governments Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and Fehr & Peers September 2008 EPS #16135 8 ER KE LEY SACS AME HT0 6ENV E 22.,01 Ninth Servet, Suite 200 Fsllon': 510-4-11-9190 phone: 916-649-8010 pb etre: 303-023-3557 Berkeley, CA 94710-251= fax: 510-841-9208 Fos: 916-6.19-2070 Fitt: 303-623-90.19 ivw1v c}esys.c0nI TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS............................................................. 1 Nexus Study, Fee Overview, and Purpose...............................................................1 SummaryOf Fees......................................................................................................... 3 Key issues and Assumptions...................................................................................... 4 II. TIFP GROWTH POTENTIAL............................................................................................ 6 TimeHorizon................................................................................................................ 6 Development Alternatives.......................................................................................... 6 Development Potential................................................................................................ 7 III. TIFP MODELING, CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND COSTS ................................................... 10 Transportation Modeling and Document Review.................................................10 TIFF Capital Projects and Costs...............................................................................11 IV. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE................................................................................... 16 FeeCalculation............................................................................................................16 V. IMPLEMENTATION AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.................................................... 19 AnnualReview...........................................................................................................19 Credits, Reimbursement, and Exemptions.............................................................19 SurplusFunds............................................................................................................. 20 Securing Supplemental Funding.............................................................................. 20 Other Considerations................................................................................................. 21 APPENDICES Appendix A: Ukiah Valley Area Plan Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation Appendix B: Ukiah Valley Area Plan —Transportation Modeling Process I Table 1: Summary of Potential Transportation Impact Fees .......................................... 4 Table 2: Ukiah Valley Area Growth Potential by Land Use Alternative ...................... 8 Table 3: TIFF Capital Project List.....................................................................................12 Table 4: Dwelling Unit Equivalents by Land Use Type................................................17 Table 5: Calculation of Potential Transportation Impact Fees.....................................18 Figure 1: TIFP Study and Implementation Process........................................................... 2 Figure 2: AB1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations.........................................14 Figure 3: AB1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations.........................................15 This study was prepared by a consultant team led by Fehr & Peers under contract to the Mendocino Council of Governments. The total contract value was $110,360. Of this amount, $19,800 was a subcontract to Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. I I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This study is designed to provide the Ukiah Valley Area with the necessary technical documentation and nexus analysis supporting the adoption of a Transportation Impact Fee Program (TIFP). It has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and Fehr & Peers, with input and guidance from the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) and a Technical Advisory Committee with representatives from MCOG, the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, and Caltrans. The TIFP described in this Study is based on growth potential at buildout and identified infrastructure improvements and is consistent with the most recent relevant case law and the principles of AB1600 or Government Code Section 66000 et seq ("Fees for Development Projects"; except where specific citations are provided, this statute will be referred to in this Report as AB 1600). Following this introductory chapter, Chapter II discusses population and employment growth potential used in this analysis and Chapter III describes the modeling techniques used to establish nexus for the TIFP and TIFP capital costs. Chapter IV describes the resulting TIFP fee calculation by land use category. Finally, Chapter V discusses implementation and legal considerations. This Study provides a schedule of fees to be established by the TIFP Ordinance and Resolution. The TIFP described herein provides funding for transportation improvements in the Ukiah Valley area, including the City of Ukiah and unincorporated areas of Mendocino County near Ukiah, required to serve new development and to ensure that existing service levels can be maintained. An overview of the study process is provided in Figure 1. As shown, the study effort was initiated based on policy direction from (1) the Mendocino Council of Governments, (2) Mendocino County, and (3) the City of Ukiah. Ultimately, the final fees and corresponding implementing Ordinances and Resolutions must also be approved by each of these entities. The proposed TIFP fee, if approved, will need to be enabled through adoption by the City of Ukiah and Mendocino County of a new Ordinance. The enabling Ordinance would allow the jurisdiction to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. It is expected that the TIFP funding will be augmented by other revenue sources to meet overall funding requirements. This Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the MCOG and participating jurisdictions as necessary to ensure its accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or development potential change over time, the TIFP will need to be updated. P:\16000s\16135Mendocino\Report\16135rpt5.doc Figure 1. TIFP Study and Implementation Process Mendocino Council of Governments City of Ukiah Mendocino County Ukiah Valley Area Plan Forecast of Buildout Potential - population - employment Proportional Allocation of Costs to New Development Draft Impact Fee Nexus Study TAC Workshop and Review of Nexus Study Prepare Staff Report and Recommendation Elected Official Review of Nexus Study Final Impact Fee Nexus Study Impact Fee Public Hearing(s) Proposed ► Impact Fees by Land Use Impact Fee Implementation Strategy (e.g., Administrative Guidelines, Fee Collection Procedures, etc.) Infrastructure and Service Level Policies Infrastructure Needs Analysis (Traffic Model) TIFP Capital Project List Meet Need of New Relieve Existing Service Development Deficiency (based on traffic model) (based on traffic model) Draft Fee Ordinance and Resolution Final Approval by Final Approval by Final Approval by City of Ukiah Mendocino County Mendocino Council of Governments 2 Mendocino Mendocino City of UkiahH County Council of rl Governments P:\16000s\1 6135Mendocino\Report\Mendocino—fee—flow.vsd Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 This Study does not determine, or advocate for, a particular fee level. Rather it is designed to calculate the maximum allowable fee that could be charged given the requirements of AB 1600. In addition, the following considerations are important in reviewing this study: i The acceptance or approval of this Study does not, in itself, constitute the approval of the TIFP or a corresponding fee schedule. This can only occur through the approval of required Ordinances and Resolutions by the applicable jurisdiction or agency. The fees and TIFP outlined here only apply to the geographic area covered by the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP), which consists of approximately 37,000 acres and includes the City of Ukiah and the unincorporated county portions surrounding the City. Ukiah Valley is located about 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and runs north -south for approximately nine miles, with a maximum width of about three miles. Any development outside this area will not be subject to fees, if any, approved as part of this process. ® The acceptance or approval of this Study or the TIFP does not constitute approval for a particular transportation project or set of improvements. The funding and approval of the particular transportation improvements identified as part of the TIFP will be subject to the same approval and entitlement process that would applicable in the absence of this fee program. ® The acceptance or approval of this Study or the TIFP does not constitute approval for any particular land use program or project. The entitlement and permitting process for future land use development in the WAP will remain the same regardless of whether the TIFP is approved. ® Any revenue generated from fees collected as part of the TIFP must be segregated into a designated account and only used for purposes prescribed therein (i.e., in the TIFP Ordinance and Resolution). In other words, fee revenue collected pursuant to the TIFP can only be used to fund TIFP projects. A summary of the fees calculated in this TIFP Report by land use category are provided in Table 1 for four growth scenarios, which are described in Chapter II. 3 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 Table 1: Summary of Potential Transportation Impact Fees The fees shown represent the maximum fee that can be charged based on the nexus findings in this Report. These fees are calculated to generate sufficient revenue to cover the full cost of TIFP capital facilities associated with new development in the Ukiah Valley Area. The City of Ukiah and Mendocino County may as a matter of policy decide to charge a fee below the maximum fee for any or all of the land uses. However, the revenue shortfall to the TIFP that would result from reducing the fees must be made up by other non -TIFF revenue sources. Specifically, the fee levels for certain land uses cannot be raised to cover revenue shortfalls that result from lowering the fees on other land uses. The calculation of the traffic impact fees are based on a variety of assumptions regarding land use, growth potential, service standards, and facility costs. Key issues that may warrant consideration in conjunction with this Report include: ® Land Use. Fees have been developed for four (4) land use alternatives: (1) Preferred Project, (2) No Project, (3) Alternative A, and (4) Alternative B. The County of Mendocino (County) is in the process of reassessing the Ukiah Valley 4 P:\16000s\16135Mendochw\Report\16135rpt5.doc Land Ude ry-refereed µ..T'�o eft l�o�',r©, ect Alternative, Alternat��re B Single -Family $13,925 $17,316 $13,470 $16,145 (per unit Multifamily (per $7,186 $8,935 $6,951 $8,331 unit) High -Generating $17.06 $21.22 $16.51 $19.78 Retail(per Sq. Ft.) Low -Generating $8.93 $11.10 $8.64 $10.35 Retail(per Sq. Ft. General Office $12.38 $15.39 $11.97 $14.35 (per Sq. Ft.) Medical Office $9.44 $11.74 $9.13 $10.95 (per Sq. Ft. Light Industrial $7.26 $9.03 $7.02 $8.42 (per Sq. Ft. Heavy Industrial $1.59 $1.98 $1.54 $1.85 (per Sq. Ft.) Other Uses To be determined on a case by case basis, based on trip generation estimates. The fees shown represent the maximum fee that can be charged based on the nexus findings in this Report. These fees are calculated to generate sufficient revenue to cover the full cost of TIFP capital facilities associated with new development in the Ukiah Valley Area. The City of Ukiah and Mendocino County may as a matter of policy decide to charge a fee below the maximum fee for any or all of the land uses. However, the revenue shortfall to the TIFP that would result from reducing the fees must be made up by other non -TIFF revenue sources. Specifically, the fee levels for certain land uses cannot be raised to cover revenue shortfalls that result from lowering the fees on other land uses. The calculation of the traffic impact fees are based on a variety of assumptions regarding land use, growth potential, service standards, and facility costs. Key issues that may warrant consideration in conjunction with this Report include: ® Land Use. Fees have been developed for four (4) land use alternatives: (1) Preferred Project, (2) No Project, (3) Alternative A, and (4) Alternative B. The County of Mendocino (County) is in the process of reassessing the Ukiah Valley 4 P:\16000s\16135Mendochw\Report\16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 Area Plan (UVAP). The process has resulted in a few land use alternatives, which are described in more detail in Chapter II. The growth scenarios are provided at this juncture for comparison purposes. Growth Potential. The impact fee calculations are based on commercial, industrial, and residential growth potential at buildout in the Ukiah Valley area through 2030. The estimates of buildout potential vary by land use alternative and were developed as part of the reassessment of the UVAP. If the growth potential does not materialize as expected, the corresponding facilities will not be needed or impact fee revenue will not be sufficient to pay for facilities already built. Consequently, the estimates of development and population should be periodically reviewed and updated. Zones of Benefit. This analysis does not include any special areas or "zones of benefit." In other words, new development will pay the same per-unit fee regardless of where in the Ukiah Valley area it occurs. Traffic Demand. As part of this analysis, Fehr & Peers estimated the demand that projected growth will generate for regional transportation improvements using the most recently updated version of the Ukiah Valley area travel demand model as well as a comprehensive review of recent planning studies in the area. The capital improvements identified through this process represent a wide range of projects throughout the Ukiah Valley area, such as roadway extensions into developing areas, widening of existing streets to accommodate higher levels of travel demand, and improvements to traffic signal systems and intersections to better handle future traffic. Cost Estimates. The fee calculations embody facility cost assumptions that have been developed based on published studies where available, and City and County staff estimates. The cost estimates are intended for planning purposes, and will be further refined over time as individual capital improvement projects are designed. As with the estimates of growth, the cost estimates should be periodically reviewed and updated. 5 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc II. TIFF GROWTH POTENTIAL The TIFP fee is a one-time fee levied on new development at a rate proportional to its demand for transportation capital improvements. Thus, a forecast of potential buildout in the Ukiah Valley Area is required to calculate the fee. This Chapter documents the land use growth assumptions used to calculate the TIFP fee. Specifically, it describes the amount of residential, retail, and commercial/industrial land use development expected to occur in the Ukiah Valley Area through the year 2030. These estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculation: Estimates of existing and future development and population are used to evaluate future traffic levels and determine the need for transportation improvements in the Ukiah Valley Area. Estimates of future development and population at buildout are used to allocate the costs of required transportation improvements and ultimately to calculate a fee per unit of new growth. The following sections describe the potential development at buildout and the key assumptions underlying them. The time horizon for an impact fee program is important because it determines the type and amount of transportation improvements that will be included in the fee program as well as the level of growth these improvements will serve. A longer time horizon will result in more transportation improvements being included in the TIFP fee because of the added traffic demands from the increased population and jobs that will occur by that future date. A shorter time horizon typically reduces the number of improvements in the TIFP fee because it includes only those improvements needed to accommodate a lower level of population and employment growth. This Study is based on a time horizon that ends in the year 2030. This corresponds to the timeframe used in the Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan. The timeframe also corresponds to the future population and employment estimates available for use in this Study, as further described below. The County of Mendocino (County) is in the process of reassessing the UVAP. The process has resulted in four land use alternatives, as described below. 6 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 NO PROJECT The No Project alternative refers to current land use designations as stated in the General Plan. In the event that the UVAP is not approved, future development under this alternative assumes current land use designations. This alternative results in less aggressive growth potential, as described in the next section. PREFERRED PROJECT The Preferred Project alternative is the desired land use alternative in the WAP. Under this alternative over 250 acres are developed with residential uses and about 250 acres are developed with mixed use. The changes in land use designations are meant to facilitate the development of larger projects, such as mixed uses on the Masonite site and a residential project in Lover's Lane, among others. As a result, the Preferred Project alternative results in larger growth potential than the No Project alternative. ALTERNATIVES A AND B Alternatives A and B are variations of the Preferred Project alternative. Alternatives A and B exclude various projects allowing a change in land use designation. For instance, Alternative A does not include the Lover's Lane project, which allows 188 acres of agricultural land to be converted to mostly residential uses. Meanwhile, Alternative B also excludes the Lover's Lane project, as well as the Brush Street Triangle project, which converts 85 acres of industrial land to mixed use. Development potential by land use category is based on population and employment projections contained in the UVAP. Specifically, population growth projections are used to estimate future residential development and employment growth projections are used to estimate future retail and commercial/industrial development. Population and employment projections have been converted into an estimate of future residential and commercial development using assumptions regarding persons per household and square feet per employee. Residential and commercial development in the Ukiah Valley Area varies by land use alternative, as each alternative allows for varying changes in land use designations and thereby development projects. The resulting estimates of residential and commercial development of the UVAP land use alternative used in this Report are described below and summarized in Table 2. P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc Table 2 Ukiah Valley Area Growth Potential by Land Use Alternative Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Program; EPS#16135 Growth in Land Use Units xe o Item No Project � `�Pr��� ��AlternativeA Alternative Residential Units Single -Family 1,644 2,100 1,860 Multifamily 848�x 2,626 1,690 Subtotal 2,492 4,726 3,550 Commercial ksf High -Generating Retail 1,144 1,672 1,334 Low -Generating Retail 406 624 518 General Office 411 531 376 Medical Office 80 �� 91 85 Light Industrial 2,665 1,636 1,663 Heavy Industrial 2,334 1,660 2,476 Subtotal 7,039��ri x 6,214 6,453 Source: City of Ukiah; Mendocino County; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/8/2008 8 P.kl6OOOsll6l35MendOcinOlMOdeAI6135mod5.xls Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As previously discussed, the focus of this Study is the Preferred Project alternative. The conversion of industrial land to residential in this alternative allows for the greatest amount of residential development, both Single -Family and Multifamily units. The Preferred Project alternative also increases densities, which allows for more Multifamily units. The result is approximately 6,300 additional residential units at full buildout, 54 percent of which are Multifamily units. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT A total of 6.5 million square feet of commercial development is projected for full buildout under the Preferred Project alternative. Retail and industrial development make up almost 90 percent (5.7 million square feet) of potential growth, while office uses make up the remainder (870,000 square feet). 9 P. \ 16000s\ 16135Mendocino \Report \ 16135rpt5.doc III. TIFP MODELING, CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND COSTS This chapter documents the transportation modeling and stakeholder review conducted to identify transportation improvements for inclusion in the TIFP capital project list and their corresponding costs. The TIFP capital project list includes all the projects that are assumed to be funded, in full or in part, by TIFP revenue. The UVAP travel demand model, a regional model used to conduct long-range planning and assess transportation impacts of major development in Ukiah Valley, was used in this study to identify major transportation improvements needed to support future growth. The model was originally created in 2004 using the TransCAD software, and was updated and re -validated in 2007 by Fehr & Peers with assistance from County staff. The model validation effort is documented in a technical memorandum dated June 4, 2008 (see Appendix A). The results of the base year modeling, as well as the memo titled AB1600 Traffic Fee Study — Existing Conditions Summary (TJKM Transportation Consultants, January 12, 2007), indicate very few areas where current traffic volumes exceed capacity (or "existing deficiencies"). The few documented deficiencies have been accounted for in the development of the TIFP capital projects list. The year 2030 land use projections reflecting the various UVAP alternatives were incorporated into the model and the model results were examined to identify those areas where traffic congestion might occur. A series of roadway improvements were identified that could address those issues and further modeling was done to confirm their effectiveness. This effort is documented in a technical memorandum dated March 21, 2008 (see Appendix B). In addition, a comprehensive review was conducted (both by the consultant team and the Technical Advisory Committee members) of a wide range of technical and planning studies that have been completed in the past few years that identified needs for a number of capital improvements. At the recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee, many of these improvement projects that are intended to address future transportation needs were also included in the TIFP list. In many instances, these improvement projects cannot be fully represented in the travel demand model — they may be localized operational improvements such as installing traffic signals or adding turn pockets at an intersection — but they have an important effect on the capacity and efficiency of the transportation system. In other instances, an earlier study had already determined the relatively priority of projects. For example, the Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study identified a series of both short-term and long-term improvements to the interchanges in the Ukiah area. The short-term improvements are intended to address current deficiencies so they are not included in the TIFP list. The long-term improvements are intended to address future needs, so they have been included in the TIFP list. 10 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mmidocino \ Report\ 16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 A description of the TIFP project list used to develop the fee calculated in this Technical Report is provided in Table 3 and shown graphically in Figures 2 and 3. As shown, there are 72 separate TIFF projects with an estimated total capital cost of about $127.7 million. The cost estimates are based on the best information available at the time of this Report. To the extent that this project list and/or the corresponding cost estimates are updated, the fee amount will change accordingly. Costs were obtained from published studies where available, or from City and County Staff. Costs from studies published before 2008 were translated into year 2008 dollars using the California DOT Price Index for Highway Construction Items. The cost estimates are intended for planning purposes only, and will be refined over time as individual capital improvement projects are further developed and designed. The TIFP project list varies slightly depending on which development alternative is selected. The TIFP project list used to develop the fee is based on the Preferred Project alternative (see Table 3). For the other alternatives, a few TIFP projects are not necessary and can be removed from the list, resulting in a total TIFP program cost of approximately $100.8 million. 11 P. v 16000s v 16135Mendocino v Reportv 16135rpt5.doc Table 3 TIFP Capital Project List Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Program; EPS#16135 Street Name Project ID Description Cost Airport Park Blvd 9 Extend Airport Park Boulevard to Plant Road or US -101 SB ramps $6,192,000 Standards 67 Airport Park Boulevard -Talmage Road to S. Terminus - Install signal interconnect cable between $23,263 $186,101 110 Talmage Road & Commerce Drive $186,101 6 68 Airport Park Boulevard/Commerce Drive Intersection: Install traffic signal and re -stripe to provide EB $195,406 N. State Street/Scott Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 and WB leff turn lanes N. State Street/Standley Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal Brush Street 11 US -101 SB ramp installation at Brush Street, if viable and coordinated with improvements and/or $2,600,000 lane, realign EB driveway, coordinate limitations at Perkins Street/US 101 interchange 36 N. State Street/Perkins Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal 20 N. State Street/Brush Street Add WB left turn lane, coordinate signal; OR N. State Street/Brush $68,857 $3,300,000 41 Street -Low Gap Road widen east leg, new phasing; OR Low Gap Road/Brush Street install signal; OR $186,101 69 N. State Street - City Limit to Brush Street Intersection - Install signal interconnect cable N. State Street/Low Gap Road -Brush Street WB add right turn lane 70 N. State Street - Brush Street to Perkins Street Intersection - Install signal interconnect cable 28 Brush Street and Ford Road widening $3,700,000 ..................................... Clay Street .................................................................. 97 ............................................ ..............................................................................:........................................ .................. ........................................ Clay Street and Hospital Drive Extensions- Hospital from Perkins Street to Clay Street AND Clay $1,836,000 24 Orchard Avenue/Ford Street: provide two-way left -turn lane striping; OR install traffic signal Street extension to Peach Street/Leslie Street intersection 25 Dora Street 56 Gobbi Street Street/Dora Street Intersection Signalize and re -stripe to, provide separate NB right turn $195,406 $597,402 81 Lane , $58,622 61 Dora Street/Clay Street Intersection Install a traffic signal and re -stripe to provide separate NB and SB $195,406 .Avenue .............................................................................................................................* Extend Orr Springs Rd to new Orchard Ave extension $2,800,000 left turn lanes Sp ........................................................ rin�s,Road Connection to.l overs. Lane {possiblx via, Despina. Drivel ..................................... $..1..'g0.0.'0.0.0. 62 Dora Street/Mill Street Intersection Install signal and re -stripe to provide separate SB left tum lane $195,406 63 Dora Street/Washington Avenue Intersection Install a traffic signal and re -stripe to provide separate $232,627 NB,SB,EB, and WB left turn lanes 79 Dora Street - N. Terminus to S. City Limit - Install signal interconnect cable $69,788 98 South Dora Street Extension - between Oak Knoll Drive and Stipp Lane $2,700,000 107 Dora Street/W. Perkins Street intersection install sinal and coordinate $186:101 Gobbi Street 31 . g .... ...... 9 Gobbi Street Street/Wau h Lane ihtersectlon Install traffic sinal and coordinate; OR install traffic $186,101 signal 53 S. State Street/Gobbi Street Intersection Add separate SB and WB right turn lane, modify and $151,672 coordinate existing traffic signal 55 Gobbi Street - Dora Street to S. State Street - Widen to Major Arterial standards and install signal $1,820,070 interconnect cable 77 Gobbi Street - S. State Street to City Limit Intersection - Install signal interconnect cable $100,495 108 Gobbi Street/Oak Street intersection install signal and coordinate $186,101 --------------------------------- Low Gap Road 74 Low Gap Road, from N. State Street to City Limit- Widen to collector street conforming to City $286,596 Standards 109 Low Gap Road/Bush Street intersection install signal and coordinate _ $186,101 110 Low Gap..Road/Despina.Drive intersection install sinal and.coordinate.......................................................................................... $186,101 6 N. State Street/Norton Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 14 N. State Street/Scott Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 16 N. State Street/Standley Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 26 N. State Street/Clara Avenue consider mitigation options; OR install signal, re -stripe add SB left -turn $201,920 lane, realign EB driveway, coordinate 36 N. State Street/Perkins Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 40 N State Street: Widen to four lanes between US 101 and Lake Mendocino Drive $3,300,000 41 N. State Street/Ford Street Intersection: Install traffic signal and coordinate; OR add SB left -turn lane $186,101 69 N. State Street - City Limit to Brush Street Intersection - Install signal interconnect cable $153,533 70 N. State Street - Brush Street to Perkins Street Intersection - Install signal interconnect cable $83,746 N. State Street/Ford Road. Intersection: add WB riRht.Iyrn lane $1,100:000 .112 .................................... Orchard Avenue 7 I................ ......... .............................................................................:............:........::.::. Extend Orchard Avenue to Hensley Creek Road and to Lake Mendocino Drive $18,000,000 24 Orchard Avenue/Ford Street: provide two-way left -turn lane striping; OR install traffic signal $186,101 25 Orchard Avenue/Clara Avenue: provide two-way left -turn lane striping; OR install traffic signal $186,101 27 Orchard Avenue: Brush St intersection improvements $597,402 81 Orchard Avenue - N. City Limit to E. Perkins Street - Install Signal interconnect cable $58,622 Orchard southern extension to Talmage Road * :000 .99 Orr Springs Road 106 .Avenue .............................................................................................................................* Extend Orr Springs Rd to new Orchard Ave extension $2,800,000 111Orr Sp ........................................................ rin�s,Road Connection to.l overs. Lane {possiblx via, Despina. Drivel ..................................... $..1..'g0.0.'0.0.0. Economic & Planning Systems, loc. 9/8/2006 12 PAl6000s116135MendocinolModeM6135mod5.xls Table 3 TIFP Capital Project List Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Program; EPS#16135 Street Name Project ID Description Cost Perkins Street 21 E. Perkins Street/Orchard Avenue Intersection: general lane improvements; OR signal phasing $65,135 modification and coordination of existing signal, lane restriping; OR expansion & signalization 30 E. Perkins Street Street/Main Street Intersection Install traffic signal, coordinate, re -stripe to provide $195,406 separate SB, EB and WB left -turn lanes; OR install signal 76 E. Perkins Street - N. State Street to City Limit - Widen to Major Arterial standards and install signal $1,460,895 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... interconnect cable Redemeyer Road 5 Improvements for Redemeyer Road $12,300,000 ... .,,......,........................................ .8 Redemeyer.Road, extension over Russian River to North State Street or Lake Mendocino Drive ..............................p..........p....................P.............................................................................. .......................................................in" $16,900,000 t...S South State Street 51 S. ate y S. State Street/Clay Street Intersection Install traffic si nal and re-stri a to rovide se orate NB SB $195,406 left turn lane 52 S. State Street/Mill Street Intersection coordinate existing traffic signal $9,305 54 S. State Street/Hastings Avenue Intersection Add separate EB and WB left -turn lane, separate NB $199,128 right -turn lane, modify and coordinate existing traffic signal 71 S. State Street - Perkins Street to Gobbi Street - Install signal interconnect cable $60,483 72 S. State Street- Gobbi Street St To Talmage Rd - Install signal interconnect cable $60,483 .............................................. 73 S; State Street -Talmage Road to Washington -Install signal interconnect cable $65,135 Talmage Road 23 S. State Street/TaImage Intersection Re -stripe to provide separate SB left turn lane, add separate NB $112,591 right -turn lane, modify and coordinate existing traffic signal 58 Talmage Road/Waugh Lane Intersection Install a traffic signal $186,101 59 Talmage Road/Airport Park Boulevard Intersection Construct additional WB left turn and add EB right $95,842 turn lanes 60 Talmage Road/Hastings Avenue Intersection Install a traffic signal and re -stripe to provide separate $195,406 EB and WB left turn lanes 78 Talmage Road - S. State Street to City Limit - Widen to four lane arterial, add signal interconnect $2,953,426 cable .................................... US 101 Interchanges 15 Perkins Street/US 101 Improvements $3,992,893 17 North State Street/US 101 Improvements $3,843,026 19 Gobbi Street/US 101 Improvements $2,671,336 47 US -101 Lake Mendocino Drive interchange improvements - increase ramp acceleration lengths $1,553,170 ......................48 Talmage RoadNS 101 Improvements 1 $10,292,186 Various Bicycle Projects 82 Bicycle Facilities for Hensley Creek Road, Lake Mendocino Drive, and Vichy Springs Road $400,000 83 Bicycle Facilities for N. State Street $990,000 ., .9fi. Rail Trail Class I Facility: between Ford Road .and,Norcjard Lane,alon railroad tracks $3,120:000 Various City Streets 100 New N/S street between and parallel with Main St and NWP RR $2,724,000 (Form -based code) 101 New N/S street parallel with and along west side of NWP RR $2,052,000 102 N extension of Leslie Street, from Perkins St to new E/W street along S side of hospital $504,000 103 New E/W street along S side of hospital and easterly continuation, between Hospital Dr and Orchard $1,908,000 Ave 104 New E/W street between and parallel with Perkins St and Clay St $1,224,000 105 New E/W street along S side of Sun House $888,000 106 New E/W street N of and parallel with Smith St $810,000 TOTAL Total For Preferred Project $127,672,602 Total For No Project, Alternative A, and Alternative B [1; $100,772,602 Source: City of Ukiah; Mendocino County; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Excludes projects 7, 10A, 10B, and 111. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/8/2006 13 P:I16000s116135MendocinolModell16135mod5.xis FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS X4® 1.600 Program Capital Improvement Locations N:APROJCGTSSF06-0297 Ulliah fee S(udytGlS tui?DHJVI',P C,ritailmprOverceniLccaiicns_i.m:.tl 14 FIGURE 2 0 20 41 70 26 31 22 99 Legend ® AB1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations Interstate Local Roads Ukiah City Limits N NOT TO SCALE TR N SPORTATIBN CONSULTANTS R &PEERS TRAA 1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations W:TROJEGTS' F06 0297 Ukiah Fee _2 mxd 15 FIGURE 3 0 61 62 55 I 56 31 22 99 Legend ® AB1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations Interstate Local Roads Ukiah City Limits N NOT TO SCALE TR N SPORTATIBN CONSULTANTS R &PEERS TRAA 1600 Program Capital Improvement Locations W:TROJEGTS' F06 0297 Ukiah Fee _2 mxd 15 FIGURE 3 IST. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE This chapter describes the techniques used to calculate the fee for the TIFP. The fee is based on the TIFP capital project list costs attributable to new growth within the Ukiah Valley Area divided by projected development by land use category in the region. This analysis relies on Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) factors to compare and evaluate future development across land use categories. Specifically, DUE factors compare residential, retail, office, and industrial land uses to one another based on their vehicular trip generation rates in order to develop a common metric for analysis. The factors used to convert residential, retail, office, and industrial growth in DUES are shown in Table 4, and are based on standard assumptions regarding trip generation and trip diversion. The DUE factors are then used to calculate DUE growth by land use, as shown in Table 5. The actual fee calculation is based on the net TIFP capital project costs attributable to new growth throughout the region divided by the projected number of new housing units, retail and commercial square feet developed in the Ukiah Valley Area through year 2030. Specifically, the total DUE growth by land use, calculated in Table 5, is divided by the capital project costs (see Table 3) to obtain total cost per DUE. To the extent that the costs are reduced because of outside funding sources, changed facility requirements, or other factors, the fee would be reduced by a proportionate amount. For example, if for policy considerations it is determined that 20 percent of the costs are funding using other sources, the resulting fee would also be reduced by 20 percent. A summary of the TIFP per DUE by land use alternative is provided in Table 5. The actual fees by land use category are derived based on the DUE factors shown in Table 2 (total fee per DUE multiplied by the DUE factor by land use category). As noted, the TIFP provides a single fee representing the entire region. For the Preferred Project land use projections, the fee for a single-family house is approximately $14,000. A complete summary of fees by land use category is shown in Table 1. 16 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \Report\ 16135rpt5.doc Table 4 Dwelling Unit Equivalents by Land Use Type Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Program; EPS#16135 Dwelling Daily Model ITE Ratio of PM PM Peak Hour Unit Trip Rates Peak Hour / Daily Estimated Trip % New Equivalent per unit ITE Code Trip Rates Rate Trips (DUE) Residential Units Single -Family 11.52 210 0.106 1.22 100% 1.00 Multifamily 7.08 230 0.089 0.63 100% 0.52 Subtotal Commercial ksf High -Generating Retail 34.4 820 0.087 2.99 50% 1.23 Low -Generating Retail 18 820 0.087 1.57 50% 0.64 General Office 12 710 0.135 1.62 67% 0.89 Medical Office 12 720 0.103 1.24 67% 0.68 Light Industrial 5.25 110 0.141 0.74 86% 0.52 Heavy Industrial 1.28 120 0.127 0.16 86% 0.11 Source: City of Ukiah; Mendocino County; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/8/2008 17 P:116000sll6l35MendocinolModeAI6135mod5.xls m O Ni N LC) N It 00 C— 'ti O N N Ln O CO 0 LO a0 CO M Ohm MMMLC)0Nr ct O It 00 cc00 ti r N CO co co 00 N LO r M N (4 Co CV r (O N C` CNO ti C— r c r r CD co N_ O r N CO LC) LO ty- M � Ef3 L W W) d' 0 O O O = Q r r r (O O d' CO r O LC) d') O) W C C p y(n:ECn -"t i+ LC) O O N N M OI (ON N O y CD U-) -It O I- CD m m N N O fl - '[F ',t O"t d' MrO rt 0 d' N M N 'ct I-. C C ti Ef3 L ,ami O O a 1 za "It wiN NO co �t0Nm O N Co �t M co O CO 0 LO a0 CO M N0 000 COO r CO d' O It N Cl) CO N t� 00 0 Cl) r N r r M L() N C` CNO ti CD CNO LO CMO' CO r r r r CD co N_ O r N CO LC) LO ty- M ti Cf3 co LO W) d' 0 000 1- r dO' O = N M CO r r r (O O d' CO r O LC) d') O) W C C p y(n:ECn -"t i+ 69 Ito CO0 M0 N O O O LC') N CSO CR(q L r r 0 r Cj CD O C) O 0010 O O d' M Co Lo M O M O LO 000 COO 4�y Cm LO M COO v U O0CD Nd'rrOO d' Or O CNO ti CD CNO LO CMO' CO N CV N 4r r r CD co N_ O r N CO LC) LO ty- M O co LO W) d' M 000 1- r dO' O = N M CO r r r (O rt 001 N d' CO r O LC) d') O) W C C p y(n:ECn -"t i+ coo cole Ito CO0 M0 N r (N NI t. - IL O cu .r U aa)) rn 0) Co c O .m U y U) V � E 0) O C4 CO T_ LL E N C C _0 C •L N a) (0 W Q O = C6 C T E=3c cmn +. of W C C p y(n:ECn E p N N C7) N C O=J UL 2_ISCn i+ 2 N i+ O O 18 IL V. IMPLEMENTATION AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The approval and implementation of the TIFP should take into account a number of on- going legal and administrative considerations. The primary legal and administrative considerations are discussed below. AB 1600 (at Gov. C. §§.66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following: ® A description of the type of fee in the account. • The amount of the fee. ® The beginning and ending balance of the fund. • The amount of fees collected and interest earned. ® Identification of the improvements constructed. • The total cost of the improvements constructed. • The fees expended to construct the improvement. • The percent of total costs funded by the fee. If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, participating jurisdictions and the MCOG should monitor development activity, the need for infrastructure improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. Formal annual review of the TIFP should occur, at which time adjustments should be made. It is recommended that, under certain and limited circumstances as determined by the City and County, the Impact Fee Ordinance allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, and/or exemptions. Fee credits, reimbursements, or exemptions should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to review by City and County staff, as well as Board of Supervisors and City Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate. A fee credit may be allowed if a developer provides a particular transportation facility or improvement "in-kind" rather than through payment of the TIFP fee. The fee credit should equal the most current cost estimate of the infrastructure item (as defined by annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost) regardless of the actual cost to construct. 19 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 Reimbursements should be considered for developers who contribute more funding and/or build and dedicate infrastructure items that exceed their proportional obligation if the project funded is a priority project. Such reimbursements should be provided as fee revenue becomes available and should include a reasonable factor for interest earned on the reimbursable amount. It should not compromise the implementation of other priority capital projects. A provision for including such interest payments as additional costs in subsequent fees can be included in the Ordinance. Reimbursements would be granted on a discretionary basis only and not granted as a right. The participating jurisdiction may also elect not to impose fees for certain categories of development. For example, the jurisdiction may elect to exempt developers from paying fees on any affordable housing units they build. Likewise, the jurisdiction may enter into a Development Agreement that specifically exempts all or a portion of the jurisdiction fees. In either case, the jurisdiction will need to provide an alternative funding source for generating the corresponding loss in fee revenue. AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the operating entity(ies) (e.g. MCOG, Board of Supervisors, City Council) shall make findings once each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)). If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them (Gov. C ;66001(e)(0). The TIFP is not appropriate for funding the full amount of all capital costs identified in this Study. The participating jurisdictions will have to identify funding and pay for improvements related to existing and new developments and improvements not funded by the TIFP or any other established funding source. Indeed, as part of the adoption of the fee, the City and County are likely to adopt a finding that it will obtain and allocate 20 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \ Report \ 16135rpt5.doc Final Report Ukiah Valley Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study September 8, 2008 funding from various other sources for the fair share of the costs of improvements identified in this Report that are not funded by the TIFP. Examples of such sources include the following: ® General Fund Revenues. In any given year, the jurisdiction could allocate a portion of its General Fund revenues for discretionary expenditures. Depending on the revenues generated relative to costs and jurisdiction priorities, the jurisdiction may allocate General Fund revenues to fund capital facilities costs not covered by the TIFP or other funding sources. ® Assessments and Special Taxes. The jurisdiction could fund a portion of capital facilities costs using assessments and special taxes. For example, the establishment of a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District would allow the jurisdiction to levy a special tax to pay debt service on bonds sold to fund construction of capital facilities or to directly fund capital facilities. ® State or Federal Funds. The participating jurisdiction might seek and obtain grant of matching funds from State and Federal sources to help offset the costs of required capital facilities and improvements. As part of its funding effort, the jurisdiction should research and monitor these outside revenue sources and apply for funds as appropriate. ® Developer Contributions: Developers of particular projects may be required to pay for all or a portion of the costs of transportation improvements needed to serve their development. Completion of this nexus study and inclusion of a capital improvement project in a fee program does not constitute environmental clearance of that project. All relevant environmental and other reviews are still required before any project can be constructed. Therefore, the projects included in the TIFP capital project list require all relevant environmental and other local reviews (e.g., Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)) before the project can be constructed. It is important to note that while the capital improvement projects require environmental and other relevant reviews, the adoption of a fee program does not. 21 P: \ 16000s \ 16135Mendocino \Report \ 16135rpt5.doc MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD AGENDA # ONLINE AGENDA SUMMARY -Arrangements for public hearings and timed presentations must be made with the Clerk of the Board in advance of public/media noticing -Agenda Summaries must be submitted no later than noon Monday, 15 days prior to the meeting date (along with electronic submittals) -Send 14 complete sets (original; single-sided+13 copies) = Items must be signed-off by appropriate departments and/or County Counsel -Transmittal of electronic Agenda Summaries and associated records must be emailed to: bosagenda(a77co.mendocino.ca.us -Electronic Agenda Transmission Checklist`. ❑ Agenda Summary ❑ Records ❑ If applicable, list other online information below -Executed records will be returned to the department within one week. Arrangements for expedited processing must be made in advance TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: April 13, 2009 FROM: Tom Mitchell Chief Executive Officer MEETING DATE: April 21, 2009 DEPARTMENT RESOURCF/CONTACT: Tom Mitchell PHONE: 463-4441 Present ® On Call Consent Agenda ❑ Regular Agenda ® Noticed Public Hearing ❑ Time Allocated for Item: 15 min PREVIOUS BOARD/BOARD COMMITTEE ACTIONS: The Board of Supervisors had previously appointed an Ad Hoc Conu ittee to meet with the City of Ukiah regarding sharing of sales tax revenues. This committee concluded its work in December 2008, and the remainder of the agreement details were delegated to the Executive Office and County Counsel to report back to the Board of Supervisors. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: In December 2008, the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee (Supervisors Delbar and Wattenberger) concluded its discussion with representatives of the City of Ukiah. County Counsel and the City of Ukiah attorney have been working on the legal issues since January 2009, and have drafted the attached agreement for your review. The City of Ukiah and the County of Mendocino Ad Hoc Committees met numerous times in calendar year 2008 with Government Financial Strategies (GFS), an independent consultant, to determine whether a tax sharing agreement could be developed that would be to the mutual interest of all parties. Sales tax data was examined in great detail by the Committees and the resulting agreement provides a framework for a workable solution. After final review and direction from both City and County governmental bodies, the agreement will be finalized and presented independently to both City Council and County Board of Supervisors for approval. The issues relating to annexation were temporarily placed on hold pending this agreement. Since tentative agreement was reached on `draft principles', the economic decline in California and in the County of Mendocino makes it even more apparent that it is time for the County and the City to work together on important regional issues. • SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD (CHECKED BY COB IF APPLICABLE):❑ BOARD ACTION (DATE: }: ❑ Approved ❑ Referred to ❑ Other RECORDS EXECUTED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: ❑ Other Revised -01/09 I PPEER11" ONLiNE AGENDA SUMMARY BOARD AGENDA # 'J"'P ... ........ ... ...... Source of Funding Current F/Y Cost Annual Recurring Cost Budgeted in Current F/Y General Fund N N/A I Yes ElNo 0 SUPERVISORIALDiSTRICT:l" 2" 3" 4H 5L] A11M E VOTE REQUIREMENT: MajorityM 4/5th F-] E ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Supervisors could elect to refer the item to the General Government Committee 0 CEO REVIEW (NAME): Tom Mitchell, CEO PHONE: 4634441 RECOMMENDATION: Agree E DisagreeE] No Opinion 0 Alternate F] Staff Report Attached [] BOARD ACTION Date of Meeting U Approved U Referred to E3 Records Executed 0 Other Rev.1/08 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 Cities and County visioning process by advancing principles of 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. 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 Bass 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 -Bums Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law" or any successor statutory rovision that is collected from taxable sales occurring on t but excluding any sales tax above the uniform statewide ra-f(;;W606- additional tax is imposed by a party within its jurisdiction as authorized by state law. 3. General PurROse of Agree men . 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. . 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. 6. 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 (0) 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. 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 Collection Period Payment Due 1St rt. Jan -March July 31st 2asd Qtr. April -June October 31st 3`d. Qtr July -Sept January 31$t t" Qtr. Qct -Dec April 30th 9. Recove The parties agree that in the event either party------ j'l lII 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 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 considenation 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, 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 determinewhether' 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 (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 Arbitrators 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. 16. 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 shallbe effective upon receipt or three (3) days after mailing, whichever is earlier. 16. ApRroval, 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. j MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD AGENDA # V ONLINE AGENDA SUMMARY -Electronic Agenda Transmission Checklist: Z Agenda Summary ❑ Records ❑ If applicable, list other online information below TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: April 10, 2009 FROM: Tom Mitchell Chief Executive Officer MEETING DATE: April 21, 2009 DEPT RESOURCE/CONTACT: Tom Mitchell, CEO PHONE: 463-4441 Present Z On Call Consent Agenda ❑ Regular Agenda Z Noticed Public Hearing ❑ Time Allocated for Item: 15 min AGENDA TITLE: Discussion and Possible :Action, on ;Sfaius of Court Faciliies Planvng or Mendocino Conn Courthouse,;'Punded by;the„Judieial Council ,®f California t3' Administrative 0it"ice'of:the Courts (AC3C) PREVIOUS BOARD/BOARD COMMITTEE ACTIONS: County planning with regard to County Justice Facilities has been underway since 2006 and periodic updates have been provided to the Board. On March 24, 2009 the Mendocino Courthouse Project was referred to the Criminal Justice Committee. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A planning effort for the construction of a new Court Facility has been underway under the auspices of the Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Senate Bill 1407 enacted on September 26, 2008, provided enhanced revenue streams and authorized $5 billion in lease -revenue bonds for trial court facility construction. This action followed the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002, which provided for the new construction and updating of Trial Court facilities throughout California. The Superior Court of Mendocino County now appears on a list for consideration of funding within the $5 billion bond measure. A process for recommending new construction projects to the California Department of Finance has been established by the AOC. The schedule calls for a potential fast track 62 -month award and construction process, starting with site selection in November, 2009, for projects which are recommended for funding. In order to determine which projects are ultimately recommended for funding, a process of project feasibility is now being undertaken by the AOC, and requires that recommendations for sites for the relocation of the Court facilities be made by May, 2009. The County Executive Office is working with the City Manager and Courts to develop a process of open communication and to explore mutual interests. In addition, the County of Mendocino has significant financial interest in co -location of the Courthouse with future jail and County Sheriff facilities. There are a number of financial impacts to the County with continued separate facilities and the Executive Office will be preparing staff reports for the Criminal Justice Committee to discuss in more depth. The construction of a new Court Facility is a project of the State of California and is not a project that will be undertaken by either the County of Mendocino, or the City of Ukiah. Since both the County and the City are being invited to recommend sites for the building it is important they work together to address the site issues, with a goal that the project's overall feasibility and selection for funding could be enhanced by agreement and/or mutual effort on a site location. In addition, the County will be involved in discussions regarding the Old Courthouse with the AOC since that site does not automatically revert to the County for its use. BOARD ACTION (DATE: ): ❑ Approved ❑ Referred to ❑ Other RECORDS EXECUTED: ❑ Agreement: ❑ Resolution: ❑ Ordinance: ❑ Other Revised -01909 MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOARD AGENDA# NLlNE AGENDA SUMMARY 11 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD (CHECKED BY COB IF APPLrcaBLE):❑ Source of Funding Current F/Y Cost Annual Recurring Cost Budgeted in Current F%Y Yes No Fj SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: T� 2n 3n 4n 51 -1 Allam VOTF. RF.nTTTRFMF.NT* MAinrii'VI X I d /rths[— ALTERNATIVES: Provide alternative recommendation or direction CEO REVIEW (NAME): Tom Mitchell, CEO _ PHONE: 463-4441 RECOMMENDATION: Agree Z Disagree F] No Opinion 0 Alternate ❑ Staff Report Attached BOARD ACTION Date of Meeting U Approved U Referred to U Records Executed U Other Rev.1 f QS E It_S €tin f- 1' 41 Fk, 51 l`P 11,' S11DY MENDOCINO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY BACKGROUND In March 2006, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors approved a master plan for its Justice Center Complex to include new facilities for the Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender, Alternate Defender, and Probation. The March 2006 Mendocino County Jail Needs Assessment and Criminal Justice Master Plan prepared by Steve Reader Enterprises served as the basis for this next phase of planning and design for a proposed County Justice Center including a new jail, sheriff's office, probation/justice office, juvenile hall, and spate for a State of California replacement courthouse. The needs assessment 9valuated the existing facilities, projected future needs, identified options to reduce innate population growth, and proposed alternative approaches for future facility siting. Beverly Prior Architects was selected to support the County in its next step for this project, a`site feasibility study. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibi;ity for siting the Justice Center and to assess a recommended site to meet Mendocino County's long-range criminal justice needs. The feasibility study is intended to develop an objective evoluotion- f the most cost-effective and viable approach to siting new facilities. The site assessment is intended to identify potential sites and evaluate their advantages, disadvantages, constraints, and potential regulatory and environmental concerns. Based on County Board of Supervisors' input, a preferred site is then to be further studied and analyzed to confirm its viability for the new Justice Center including developing preliminary costs. The intention of this study, was to achieve broad support from stakeholders within the County and the public. The County Board was informed on a regular basis of the process and findings. During this site feasibility study, the County has also been undergoing_a large planning study for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP), so this study has been coordinated and run parallel with the UVAP efforts. While recognizing the importance of understanding and addressing the interests of the City of Ukiah and the County stakeholders, the Board recognized that the greatest stakeholders for the Justice Center siting are the Sheriff and the Superior Court of California. BASIC FACILITY SCOPE Based on the Mendocino County Jail Needs Assessment and Criminal Justice Master Plan and further refinementin the site scope during the study period, the Justice Center site will include space for a County jail, juvenile hall, sheriff's office, justice building, courthouse and a community service center. The square building description, building area, parking spaces and area, and anticipated site population for each function and in summary are presented in the chart on the following page. I1z� IItIL l t t[EV Rapt ft'ASiNH Y _.1 t. DY BASIC SITE SCOPE INCLUDING BUILDING, PARKING, AND PEOPLE JUSTICE CENTER CO -LOCATION The vision for the new Justice Center is in large part driven by the operational benefits of co -locating those facilities whose operations are interconnected with each other. There are, great benefits in staffing efficiencies and productivity by having the following functions in close proximity or physically connected within the some building or via a protected funnel or bridge. Courthouse and Jail: A bridge or tunnel connection for doily transfer of inmates between the jail and courthouse reduces transportation and staffing costs. Jail and Juvenile Hall: Opportunities for sharing food service, laundry, and warehouse functions can reduce staffing and purchasing costs. State Courthouse and County Justice Agencies: The County justice functions (District Attorney, Public Defender, and Probation) are regularly working in the courthouse, so location in the some building or an adjacent building is ideal. f Sheriff's Office and Jail: The Sheriff oversees the jail, so site adjacency benefits management, Probation Department and Juvenile Hall: Probation oversees the juvenile' hall, so site adjacency benefits management YMM Building Parking Parking Arms Program Element Desaiptton Arca In -0 S cae In s f. 2323 Potential Site Pa` ulation Adult and Visitors/ Max, Staff Juvenilo Public Staff 4 of Shifts per Shift InnMW Jail MQ-50as 15zoff 13B A8,300 58 150 3 35 600 Jwentlo Halt 80.100 34,000 59 20,650 25 50 3 22 100 5 ari s Q Tice 52,400 187 65,450 84 118- 3 35 DA, Pub. Def, Probation, Ali Pub. Def, Gr. Jusfice Building jury 57,600 1 B 66,150 97 191 1 191 Courthouse 9'Courtrooms 90,000 405 141,750 285 120 1 120 orva people psr Day Reporting Center clay 5,000 68 30,800 75 13 1 13 T01Mt 391,000 1,066 373,100 624 6 2 6 700 Maximum Pe u tion' 624 416 700 TOTAL MAX. P P 710N 17=0 JUSTICE CENTER CO -LOCATION The vision for the new Justice Center is in large part driven by the operational benefits of co -locating those facilities whose operations are interconnected with each other. There are, great benefits in staffing efficiencies and productivity by having the following functions in close proximity or physically connected within the some building or via a protected funnel or bridge. Courthouse and Jail: A bridge or tunnel connection for doily transfer of inmates between the jail and courthouse reduces transportation and staffing costs. Jail and Juvenile Hall: Opportunities for sharing food service, laundry, and warehouse functions can reduce staffing and purchasing costs. State Courthouse and County Justice Agencies: The County justice functions (District Attorney, Public Defender, and Probation) are regularly working in the courthouse, so location in the some building or an adjacent building is ideal. f Sheriff's Office and Jail: The Sheriff oversees the jail, so site adjacency benefits management, Probation Department and Juvenile Hall: Probation oversees the juvenile' hall, so site adjacency benefits management YMM H����,',JTf,m'jiff FFAS1901, FlYS1 UUY COURTHOUSE SITING APPROACH For the reasons stated above, o conuu|k]bte6 imhce center campus is the desired oppn0006 of the Counl_ ` `. Based an -~, input, .the ^ ^~ consideration: the courthouse's potential impact on the economic viability of downtown Ukiah. Courthouses can act as an economic anchor in a community, attracting the staff and public to the duvvnhovvn for work, iury service and other court moMao, supporting coffee houses and lunch eaxz6|iohmvn$' bringing foot traffic for shopping, and creating 6wmon6 for attorney office space and buaiooun services like printing companies and messenger services, There has been strong desire expressed by some in the community and Ukiah city government that the courthouse continuing to be sited in downtown is critically important. In the process of the stvJv' several siting' options for p downtown iushce center were considered (recognizing that properties would need |o6eacquired and ossem6|e6).The large number u|acres required (over 20), the cost of land downtown, the need to provide op000 for future expansion, the siting requirements in the |o*ad State of California Trial Court Standards, and the dominance of large institutional buildings in the downtown iFthe ]os6co Center were built there were considered negatives for having the full iuUica complex in the downtown. The City of Ukiah has expressed a commitment hz supporting onew courthouse indowntown and assembling the property for it. However, the City has not expressed the some interest in uc~|nco|in8 the ipi| and other ioohce functions in the downtown. ' Given the operational benefit of locating the courthouse adjacent to the jail and other justice functions, ,he County's oppn000k is to acquire property that mon support all of the Justice Center functions and |oboJ� ��h .p�p�,e to ecourthouse location on the. Justice Center o{|o SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE SITES The study started with the analysis of six =. alternative sites characterized as Lover's Lane, Mosonite, Brush Street Triangle, Low Gap Road, Downtown, and South State Street. Their relative locations are shown on the Following diagram. The Low Gap Road site is the location of the existing jail, juvenile hall and several other County functions. Because of the neighborhood conditions and a justice center's inappropriateness at this site, the Low Gap Roa d option was eliminated from consideration.' LOVERS'LAIIE SITE BRUSH ST. TRIMIGLE -1tT7E S. STATE STRIE _ CiFf I FV !ITE FFA501-11', 5,10DY Through a public workshop and Board of Supervisors presentations, the County Board reviewed the original six site options and directed the County Planning Team to do an expanded survey of potential sites to assure that all viable sites, were considered, The team's criteria for: identifying sites included- 1 . 20 acres or more 2. Direct access to U.S. 101 3. Utility service A. limited site hazards Based on these criteria, the sites for consideration were modified and expanded to a total of 8 sites within 4 geographic regions: Geographic Area Site Forks Area 1. Mendocino Redwood Company 2. Pollini North Ukiah 3. Masonite West 4. Masonite East vCentral 5. Brush Street Triangle (Moreno) _ W �� Ukiah 6. Downtown Ukiah 7. Mountanos/}ohnson/Warner —_ South Ukiah 8. Stone/Zaino SUMMARY EVALUATION The eight sites were evaluated based on the appropriateness of their size, use, zoning, adjacent uses, accessibility, constraints, whether in a redevelopment district or not, and its characterization under the draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan. The sites and their evaluations are summarized below. Site 1: Mendocino Redwood Company Acres: 27.32 Current Use; Vacant with some service commerciol Zoning: Commercial, Industrial Adj. Uses; Industrial to south, vacant to east, comm'I to no., east e Access: Lake Mendocino Drive Constraints, Minimal Redeyol. District: Yes A Draft UVAP Proi. Alt.: North Stole Mixed Use SUMMARY: Suilable Compatible Connected to surrounding land uses a Consistent with UVAP Geed access Land owner has other plans for property BF•d�o} . pain; A.FC-1�T�;'S . c', ��'.�'4 £ "FkJ1F9 Sff` FFAW,114Y SJUDY Site 2: Pallini Acres: up to 43 - Current Use: Agriculture with a single family house and outbuildings Zenins: AG -40 AcIl. Uses: Commercial/Industrfal to east, agriculture on other sides Accm: Lake Mendocino Drive Constraints: farmland loss potential Redevel. District: �o Droft UVAP Proll, Aft.; AG SUMMARY: Suitable with good access Fair compatibility Poor connectivity tri surrounding land uses Inconsistent with UVAP Chollenge to change AG m Site 3: West MOSOAHe Acres. up to 30 Cwtenl UW, Vacant frldvslrlol Zoning: 1-2 Adj, Uses: Commotdol/Industrial to west, south, aq to the east, heavy indust'll to north * Access, State St,, nearby 101 interchange * Constraints: Already developed, congested access, rail line could impa-It * Radaval. Olstrich Yes * Dr6 UVAP Pro!, AI: Mixed Use Masonife SUMMARY: More suitable for court functions than detention Compotible with exisifog uses 501f COnt'16CINity to surrounding land uses Workable pet UVAP F.EVELIY �-'P ."*< ARCF Uiorcr: 2009 It -51! :nCi°t?ti tlF FF.' SIBli i`r` SIUDY Site 4: East Masonite � � r • Acres: up to 30 • Current Use: Vacant Zoning: I-2 r Adj. Uses: Vacant industr1of to tivest, ag to east and S south, heavy indust,'int to north t [ Access: Primary Ford $t., fvky. is 1/i mile i t ° f"nneirnln}�. h�_nrlasea®1ex .,=a�earfirntty 7n'ttnrnrt ntnin r. �. ._� ��i_ ,+,,,:a,�i...�.a .'�`e F�f�t incompatible adjaOM ups, congested IQ 1 access, � challenged access doe is rail line and fresway t � overpass. ° Redovel. District, (No „l g,1 ° Draft UVAP Prof i' lu ln+alvs Hol SllMW4iR i. r ° More suitable for deter:taara than court functions k s 'Poor access ° Poor comp-atibI01(Aq). ' . ° Fair connectivity to Surrounding land 00-s ° Workable per UVAPt t a, i a � rst>i���...Al Site 5: Brush 5freet TrIongle • Acres: up to 50 • Currant Use: Vaconl • Zoning: I.2 ° Adj. Uses: Vacant industrial to earth and south, ag to east, fairgrounds to west • Acc€+sst ford Sl., future Orchard extension, fwy. is '/a mile ° Constraints.: taw to moderate- parliaify in flood plain, limiter! access, 101 accass Is congested • Redevel. District: No Draft UVAP Proi. Att.. Mixed Use SUMMARY: Suitable and compatible for lustice center which can buffer rail, foir,;and fr€away uses o Fair connectivity to surrounding land uses limited access o Workable use Fw UVAP BEVERLY PRIOR ARCHI-.EC'S 10.wch 2009 Site: 6: Downtown Ukiah r Ac_Aa more lbon, 20; • Current Use: Vent, redevelopoble, general i commercial use ,r0 f, i ��� � • Zoning: Commercial Adj. Llsw; Commercial to north, yr st, mixed comm'l, residential to mouth and east ,:r� r, ; �r3 ° ;Access: State and Perkins, 1/.r mi. from 10 1 Pa,.�r t ' ��-���� °��� ° Constraints: Mode'roto-101 oo:ess is congested 51 and not nearby, in Airport B2 zone vk1ch ltmits �iE����i heights and density. ° Redoyol. District, Yes City of Ukiah: in Form -N3 tsod Zone District � ��� , I SUMMARY: , Good for Courthouse but height and density Iimitotions ° Sheriff's access is poor with Perkins congestion �ikel to be difficult toproperty''needed for Y jail and full justice center functions ,� �, �`'n t '"• �.p.`� ` �� ��� ," Visualization of the Airport Flight Path Height BE 'E 011 ARCHITECTS Viczch 2009 Site 7: Mcauntan®s/Johnson/'warner a Current Use: Vineyards, agricultural resid.4� ' Zoning: AIM C ai r Adj. Uses: Commerciall to west, south, resiciontiol01 .,, fo north, agriculture 'a east { ��� �?�'r �° ak Accoss: Excellent 101 access vitt Gobbi and �""� ��' t �'�� �• ���'� Talmage Interchanges * Constraints: In the floodplain, oclive agricultural use, little water and sower access: Redevol. District: Inc, - Draft UVAP P#oj. Alt.: AG 5} SUMMARY: i z• p c Good access i47 l Y Large site Would bo ca major intrusion into the agricultural area east of the freeway r s r o Chollonge to change agriculture use. - incompatible with UVAP r� b Site 8: Store/Zaino s \,� Acres: up to 75 a Current Use; Vineyards , it fig} e ,y? 1, Zoning: SR�;x.� Adj. Uses: Gen') Comrn'I to east, resid'i to north, ag• to east, rangeland to weal Access: Excellent access to So. Stats Street, SR r 253, US 101 Constralnisi low to moderaie. Zonedior residential growth with a viable project currently underway r� f •� et' . a RadQvel, Distrlcl: N Draft UVAP Prol. Al: SR and Mixed Use SUMMARY: I • Suitability is good but compatibility with the "+ } surrounding area is poor � • Connectivity to existing uses is fair to poor • Justice use is inconsistent with UVAP • londownerhas other plans for the property EEVEP.ty "<%NIULCTS Mc,& 2009 E lUSIM,C_`t'1IEkSOL k SHADY PREFERRED SITE Based on Board of Supervisors' review, sites 2, 7 and 8 were eliminated from consideration based on factors including being in agricultural -land and incompatibility with the Ukiah Valley Area Phan (UVAP). Staff was directed to initiate preliminary discussion with landowners to gauge interest and to visit the remaining properties. Based on discussions with landowners, sites 1, 3, and 4 were also removed. Removed l t Removed due to TI from jurther propetty owner vIrLb t. i consideration t concoms pallinl z i kto:rake Redwood Company s. Mountanos Stone Wsonite West Masonite East CITY 0F' U K I A H Due to space limitations for a full justice center (not excluding the potential for a new courthouse to be developed in downtown Ukiah), the downtown Ukiah site area b was also removed. The site remaining for further evaluation was site 5, the Brush Street Triangle. In the long-term interest of the County, the acquisition of the full Brush Street Triangle orea bound by Briggs Street on the West, Brunner Street on the South, and U.S. 101 on the East, consisting of approximately 42 acres, became the focus of further site investigation. 9. Jail 2. i Sheriffs Office ` 3. Mondr Farm 4. JuvenileHall 1 5; Probaffortf Justice Brush Street Triangle Site Preliminary Concept Version 1, Sept. 11, 2007 KvIERLY PRIOR ..^.:.HITrCTc ,1cich 2009 y ,g%P, SILL- t IBJJJY SPUD BRUSH STREET TRIANGLE FURTHER ANALYSIS With Brush Street Triangle as the preferred site, the consultant team performed further evaluation of that site: The engineering and cost estimating- reports are separate documents. The findings are summarized below. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Blackburn Associates of Auburn,; California, performed a Preliminary Geotechnical and Geologic Hazards Report and found that, in general, the site appears to be suitable for the proposed Justice Center. The main geologic hazard is soil liquefaction potential, based on the high site ground motions and expectation that the soil profile contains layers of saturated sand/gravel. This condition will require consideration in final design and construction. The site is also along the edge of the FEMA 100-yeor flood plain boundary that will require consideration in design and construction. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Harris & Lee Environmental Sciences of Santa Rosa, California, performed an All Appropriate Inquiry Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 Investigation, and evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions was not identified on the subject property. PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND UTILITY SERVICING STUDY Rau and Associates of Ukiah, California, prepared a preliminary study of a select number of topics at the feasibility level for the purpose of discovering any "fatal flaws" in the site which might prohibit the desired development or which might be considered economically infeasible. Findings, in summary, include: Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer facilities exist along Brush Street near the proposed project and would have to be extended from Brush Street along Orchard Street to the proposed site. The land lies partially within the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District. The first phase of the project will have to absorb the entire sanitary sewer main extension system. Water: Water transmission facilities for both domestic needs and fire flow exist along Brush Street near the proposed project. They would have to be extended from Brush Street along Orchard Avenue to the proposed site. The land is not currently annexed into the City of Ukiah but will have to be annexed in order to receive water service. Drainage: The site's natural topography serves as a basin to capture storm water runoff from the City of Ukiah's storm drain system. The Redwood Empire State Fairgrounds to the west is also a contributor to the storm water runoff and detention on this site, During 100 -year storm events, flood waters pond over the entire site. With the assumption that all areas within the improved area of the site would be raised above the Base Flood Elevation with; engineered fill, the study evaluated the existing and post - development drainage impacts for a number of alternative channel routing and detention systems for development of the project. Each of these options also assessed the hydrology and hydraulics impacts of the alternatives. BEV_RiY -., ^r An:�hi`ECiS Mkoich 2009 The County's preferred option maximizes the available drainage basins (detention areas) outside of the project improvements creating three ponded areas. The ponds vary from being detention ponds, and wetlands. This option includes replacement of the wooden box culvert under the railroad with a concrete box culvert, construction of 24 feet southerly trapezoidal ditch around the site, construction of detention basins east and west of the project development, and adding a concrete box culvert under Highway 101. SITE MASTER PLANNING REVISIONS Based on review of the project site and its viability for serving justice functions and supporting a stronger community, County representatives decided to remove the Honor Farm from this site (preferring to locate it elsewhere in the County) and add a Day Reporting Center, a model in which a contracted services provider can serve 100 people per day and which has been a successful model across the United States. Factoring in the detention pond requirements from the drainage study, the following is the revised conceptual diagram and a 3-D visualization: 1. Jail 2, Sheriff's Office 3, Day Regarfing Center 4, Juvenile Hail 5. Probation/ Justice b. Courthouse 7. Drain age Basins' & �t Revised Site Plan and Bird's -Eye View from the Southwest PAcrch 2009 , ; uTC rd.;.+kk, tl rf Seta '1 b e P ', • 4 a< 401%,Un BE Revised Site Plan and Bird's -Eye View from the Southwest PAcrch 2009 , ; P511-Iff, F LA'SIP311 fly _511LIDY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Cumming Corporation of Oakland, California, developed a Rough Order of Magnitude cost for the project based on the planining md engineering studies for the Brush Street Triangle site. The estimate, assumed four phases of building and associated site work. The order of these phases could change based on when funds become available for the construction projects. Construction costs are presented below based on construction costs in March 2009, so these numbers will require adjustment for construction cost escalation when the project schedule for each phase is determined. In addition., soft costs consisting of professional fees, administrative costs, equipment, and contingencies will need to be added to the construction costs to achieve a total project budget. These soft costs can add 35 to 50% depending on factors such as whether the County's internal project management and administrative costs are charged to the project. Phase 14' includes the Superior Court courthouse. This project would be constructed by the State of California with Stale funds, so the construction costs shown are not a port of the County's future commitment. DANCqn0a Am Cod/51F I Mar -09 Constr. Cost Phase I Buildings 0. Jail Facility 152,000 SF $487.00 $73,980,000 b. Day Reporting Center 5,000 SF $404.00 $2,022,000 Lito,aork " c. Demolition 2,658,332 SF $0.19 $500,000 d. Site Prep / Drainage 2,658,332 SF $5.00 $12,257,000 e. Site Utilities (off site) 2,658,332 SF $2.00 $,4,993,000 f. Building Utility Hook Ups 2,658,332 SF $0.50 $1,330,000 9. Site Improvements 2,658,332 SF $4.00 $10,291,000 h. Offsite Improvements 2,658,332 SE $3.00 $6,811,000 Sub -Total Construction Cost - phase 1 1 $112,184,000 *Sitework assumptions as follows: I Site demolition -assumed completed -1 OVIc. in Phase I. 2 Site pro / drainage- assumed 70% complete in Phase 1. 10% allocated to each of the Phases 2 thru A. 3 Main site utility infrastructure - assumed completed 100% in phase I A Additional utility building hook ups / site distribution - 25% allocated to each of the Phases I thru 4. Site improvements - AO% allocated to Phase 1, 20% allocated to each of the Phases 2 thru A, 6 Offsite improvements - assumed completed 100% in Phase 1. 2009 2 11"AC- C- <_Ef 1TFR Sa1f FEAS181111Y `%,L)Y Acrch 20N _ Mar -09 Ctascri tion Area CostjSF' Constr. Cost ase 2 Buildings a. Sherriff's Facility 52.,400 SF $434.00 $22,734,000 Sitework * b. Site Prep/ Drainage 2,658,332 SF $0.66 $1,751,000 c. Building Utility Hook Ups 2,658,332 SF $0.50 $1,330,000 d. Site Improvements 2,658,332 SF $2.00 $5,146,000 Sub -Total Construction Cost - Prase 2 $30,961,000 Phase 3 Buildings a. Juvenile Hall 34,000 SF $493.00 $16,751,000 Sitework b. Site Prep / Drainage 2,658,332 SF $0.66 $1,751,000 C. Site Utilities (on site) 2,658,332 SF $0.50 $1,330,000 d. Site Improvements 21658,332 SF $2.00 $5,1.46,000 Sub -Total Construction Cost - Phrase 3 $2.4,978,000 Phase 4 Buildings a. Probation Facility 57,600 SF $407.00 $23,436,800 b. Courthouse (State funded) 40,000 SF $494.00 $44,491,000 c. Connection Bridge 3,960 SF $299.00 $1,183,000' Sitework d. Site Prep / Drainage 2,658,332 SF $0.66 $1,751,000 e. Site Utilities (on site) 2,658,332 SF $0.50 $1,330,000 f, Site Improvements 2,658,332 SF $2.00 $5,146,000 Sub -Total Construction Cast � Phose 4 $77,337,800 Acrch 20N _ METHODOLOGY For the purposes of this study, the County established a Criminal Justice Committee to represent the various interests of County stakeholders including representatives from the City of Ukiah, courthouse, County justice departments, and County administration. The consultant team met with the Criminal Justice Committee on several occasions to understand the positions and concerns of the City of Ukiah and; the County and to review findings before taking them to the Board of Supervisors for its review and direction. The study ran parallel and coincided where possible with the planning efforts of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. A public outreach meeting was also held in order to receive broad community input. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS County of Mendocino Tom Allman, Sheriff Steve Dunnicliff, County Executive Office Patrick Ford, Planning Team Wes Forman, Probation Department Alison Glassey, County Executive Office Diana Hershey, Planning Team Meredith Lintott, District Attorney Kristin McMenomey, General Services Agency Beth Norman, Assistant District Attorney Tim Pearce, Sheriff's Office City of Ukiah Cynthia Coale, Main Street Project Candice Horsley, City of Ukiah John McCowen, City of Ukiah City Council Superior Court of California Ben Stough; Court Executive Officer PROJECT CONSULTANTS Beverly Prior Architects Beverly Prior, FAIR, tEED AP George Wilson, AIA Adam Murphy, AIA Byror. Bronston, AIA Wayne Miller, RA Yosser Malaiko BE`dE=aY PRIOR aRCH-EC S 2007-8 County Board of Supervisors Dave Colfax Michael Delbor John Pinches Kendall Smith Jim Wattenberger 1,Ac:,- 200- d A ;-As: =il Blackburn Consulting - Geotechnical Engineer Patrick Fischer, C.E.G. Rick Sowers, P.E., C.E.G. Cumming Corporation - Cost Sandy Gray George Rau Associates - Civil Engineer Cathy McKeon George Rau Harris & Lee - Environmental Patricia Beach Robert Harris Mr. Surt Hirschfeld, Ass'fE-tant Division Director Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office, of the Courts 455 Goiden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA941 G2�36BB CY RE, Now Ukiah Courthouse Project — Request for Econom(G Opportunily Dear Mr, Hrrsichfofd: This correspondence J'a submitted In response to your letter dated March 3, 2009 inquiring as to whether or not the City of Ukiah has one or more idenfirfed economic opporlunilieEi for the new Ukiah CourthOLI-Se Project. You letter also seeks tufo tier on alternatives sites that could accommodate a new coudsous e. Enclosed, please find our Mendocino oun(y Courthouse Relocation Project information document, This document provides a disGussion of the history and economic importr!the of U Ricin courthouse which has been located In flne 01y's dovailown 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 are -9 and has identified two aftemative sites for consideration, 1te sites ar-e situated In or adjacent to the historic dowritown and would continue to provide an irk portant econom[n, fi,7undafton end a crucial dvic and social -fabric for the071ty, We baa e oampiled the basic, required information for these slier to elevate them for consider-01fion. We have also opened a discussion with affected property owners, as well as with the Ukiah City CouncillRedevelopment Agency, who has expressed an Interest In exploring possible land, economic, andlor other contributions that could greatly aid the f6asibility of the projetcl, We will continue to generate Inforniation, interact with affected property cwner�, and discos direct and indirect contributions and incentives that the City may be in a posrtioii to offer IN$ project We are committed to working with Mendocino County, the Court Executive Officer, ijur local citizens and other Interested persons in an effbel to keep the coortficuse in our historic downtown, We look forward to an on-going dialog with your office arra are positioned to provide any additional Information y" may need to consider alternaWe sites In our downtowri, Please contact Chaney Stump, Director of Planning and Community Dievelopmert If you have arty questions or need additional Information, for, Stump can be reached at (7 7j 463-6219 1 cstumo(w--citvuTVkjah , - . com, E= a, e Cha e C' Manager 300 SEPAINARY AVENUE UKIAH, C.A�, 95La2-.540,r,) Phoi-wl'11'(17146'$-6200 FayP 707MB3-621N Web Addfesc "vwcj(yoA&Pti cona Mendocino County Courthouse Downtown Relocation Pro-ject City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development March'200 amf.1 P L £WEPT [rurll-sure F it Bei In t b r 2008, the state 1091stature, passed and the governor signed into taw Senate Bili 1407, which increased tees, penal'ttesi and assessments to fid t billion to t ( court facility con tru tion throughotAt the state, The Judicial `Council of California subsequently adopted a list of 41, t al court capital projects in 84 countiest be funded by the bill, which included the new coosthouse in Ukiah, The i(tr courthouse Is severely undersized, tacks seismic intagrity, and has American with DisOilities Act l u � l nol �u� r Ukiah rthou actually began r tarsi state i is approached the it beat alternative new foa-ations in the downtown, Tlie County commissioned a number r of studies and approved a JusticeCenter' Complex Master Plan to 2006, to Marcie 2007, Beverly Prior Architects, uncle contract with MendocinoCounty 'produced a Oftinal Justice Center Site Feasibility study, Which eso 'ribe4 the site planning requirements for ji4st[ce center sari Ideniffied, a number of altomative sites in the- Ukiah area. As recently as February 9009, Deverly Prior .Architects more detalk,,d Site Feasb1ity Study evalualf"g the advantages, di vat e , cora int , and t it fatl r� t l .. existin!R use., owners a hip rid con, [I Oroximlf� to c n UO 00 Partners ohd 6,11111111111111 The City, V1th assistant representation frorn the Jt Street outside of the Air Alternative Now I and has be noted that the Study ad's rpt Justice I ultdi s h and p named the 0WO for this alternative Wrrh NOR Altemative Site No. 2 — The TrWn Depot p�q"rty Is pyttined to red- Downtown Ukiah llllpiil� ml ill i Buvawm lrqllb Z Wirth WN The Mendocino County courthoose Opetations have been located in downtown Ukiah for ,�Omlrf,hyv, W10 Qp�jmlr—q P'sro-affm MA'mh I.Mr, 4 The MendodrmCDunt ourthouse las downtown tMah In IOU fookino northwest say the, tnter-slon of State and Parkf ns t. The 1927 Coorthouso Anorox addIllon takers frM, StbrHA Streat In I M*0 20DO O -nia" i s Iy r r The Cfvfr,, Center Campus Alternative site is identified by ffie arrows below. it two norlbarly blocks are large enough to accommodate " courthouse with the required yard setbacks, and would include a moderately stZ,-ed public plaza on, the State Street frontage, secomd parking on the Oak Street frottage® and a seaured Sally Port area, a DmIlown Qhlxft 1;OWM01ae Fistcnj vArrh2IrI-9 aflo7 IM School Street would be vacated between the two blocks to acid addItIonal teed area.. Physical Elements III 01,21H lipilil gill QVW1100m MOIN Oar° , e r ME Civic Center Campus Alternative Publicand l Five public sWeets front the stuoy ams, These Include $We Streof of the historic Camegle Wary boilding. So --boat street, woutd continue south Ot Its Intersection with Seminary Avenue. The air photogmPh on the following h(ghfights, the section, of School 6tre, et that woutd be dos6d between Clay Stmet and Seminary Avenue, ich The subject property M5 been densely developed for at lest My year and surrounding development- in the downtown area Include rnultl-story build"gsi While redevelopment of the site and the u tru tion of a multi -story coullhouse structure and justice building would require Engi eerkig Geology and Gootoohnicaf Engineering Reports, there is rig UMdoarra9. all PumOvw, r,,Bi u n reason 'to believe that such a structure Gould rani be successfully Assigned and constructed. S�elsmic ConditionstRequtrements The Ukiah "alley is part of an activeseismic region that contains the Mascarna Fault, which traverses the galley to the east and n rth df tha City. While this fault is situated in n Alpoi t- rlold Earthquake Fault Zone as mapped by the State (vision of Mines and Geology, flie subject prop lying to the west aM south is well outside of it and therefore nst subj6ot to the requirements of the Act. However, the'Callforn4a Building Cade does require grigineering Geology and Geotechnicaf Engineering Reports for large structures such as the Courthouse and Justice Building. These highly technical reports would include seismic design requirements and re - mend tion x Historic Preservatlon/Site History According to the QjjM of k LaLi Architectural and l�ll t rl l s� r � lri t� ori 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 Gen t Plan Historical and Archaeological Resources Element does not list the designated the site as a high probability for historic, archaeological, or culturat resourc es. However, there are a number of Important historic burldhVs In close roxi ity to the site that would be enhanced as aresult of the pr ¢ These IneJulde the, N fn n Mouse grid Sun House, which are bobs listed on the rational Register of historic Places. The historic l r irietyl gl Library building (1914) is sleeted nn parcel adjacent t and north of the proposed site, The 1914 Carni�pla LMrary 61OWngan Soutb SOW Tbf ffomwn 1r Energy Conservation/Utilities Staff from the City el tri , eater and wastewater divisions have indicated that all public utilities are available to serve the project site, Including, l tris, gas, cable water and sanitary sewer, Future development, of a CourtIlhouse and Justice Buildingwould be subject to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24� Part Energy Conservation, which reqL(Ires energy conservation design and constnictionmethods, The City would encourageenergy conservation site preparation and tr- ton methods not speOlcally required the Building Code. These could Inolude recvoling o demolition debris, low Impact development (LID) store grater managenient, passive solar building orientation, active solar heating Infrastructure, loan volatile oiganic compound ) paint and c .rests, etc. MfughVqQ; 12 The Cityfns and operates its own Oectrlc utility and may be in a position to provide incentives to the project, such as partial funding through its Public Benefits Program for solar Voltaic array that could provide all of a portion of the electrical needs for the project. Infrastructure Availability Proximity to County Justice PgOners and Community Semices Currently., the courthouse and criminal Jun -doe Jun-doedepartments are dispersed throughout the Citywilding 6 new courthouse structure its thi proposed Civic Center Campus tocafic n would allow the existing courthouse to temporarily or permanently function as the justice Building housing the Oistri t Attorney, Public D efender, Alternate Public Defender, Pr ati , and theGrand Diary - three i look m the naw cou�tl� , These two structures would anchor the Diatoric downtown n the north and south, and provide dominate economic catalyst for the local business community. Alternatively, a new Justice Building could be planned on a site adjacent tthe new courthouse site and constructed w n funding becomes available, Math 2M 13 Community rvI partners and County Social rvi e-cz are alsodispersed throughout the City, bort mol are situated in close proximity to the historic downtown. The County Social Services Complex is located approximately rour bfook5 to the south of the new, courthouse lacation. General Plea and Zoning Consistency The existing murthouse and the proposed Civic Center Campus Site Is designated as "C' (Commercial) n the Plitt General Plan (and use map and classified a '*C-111 (Community omm rci l) on the Ukiah zoning map. Professional offices and land uses Involving assemblages of people are permitted in this zoning district, and therefore new dart r e rind lie n i tent with tri " C" d i nation and � - ' 1 sific tion, The City could redesignate and nazone the shoe, t "P" (Public.) and "P -F" (Pu li Facilities), but it would riot be required leer. There are many County/public owned and used buildings within the City limits that are zoned "C-1" and are considered consistent, ` h the General mien and purpose and intent of the zoning di tN tt Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area The Civic Center Campus site Is iodated Within the adopted Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area, which could potentially participate financially In the projecL DV411 al M10-ut''iiSa r, Emir"ail The Ukiah Red v l pmAgency is discussing possible participation ire the courthouse relocation project, This participation could Include financial support, dedication f land for parking, eteclrical utility assistance, and other for providing economic prliiptlz Summary of Opportunities for the Civic Center Campus Alternative Site The Civir, Center Carnpus Alternative site offers a number f positive opportunities, These include: The site l situated Within the City's adopted Redevelopment Agency Area, allowingfor possible Citi participation In the project . HistodoDQwntown location 3 blocks from old courthouse, adjacent to the CIVIC Center, adjacent to Plaza,adjacent to State Street, In close pr lrr illy t Mendocino County Social servIces Complex, 4 Old courthouse becomes available to function as a Justice uildin — dramatically reducing County funding bl tic . , The site is, within, the new downtown Zoning district form based code) area,, which would provide site planning and design flextbifty, The property I-$ approximately twice the iz f current courthouse site and provides . to 4.5acres for the bultdfng aTid ediaoent parking, 1he site is outside, the restrictive airport compatibility zone end therefore a three to foram° every building is possible. The site appears large enough tor mmol t the prototype courthouse dimensions andassociated parking, 8, The building would create a School Street terminated visteL 9� There is existing public parking in close proximity to this site to supplement courthouse perking nerds. 10. if a parking structureis proposed, theris the potential for a partnership With the City RDA and interested private sector — ground floor retell In parking structure along r in ry Avenue frontage. 11, A permingture oul provide shared public parking for downtown and' support local business M'There are a limited number of acted buildings on the site—,and a limited number of residential structures, ITh 2WO 15 Alternative Downtown Site No. 2 cwllwia- foAxamal W 2000- ad. 16 i poOng, ands MOMMMMME The Train Depot Alternative site is situated east of end adjacent to historic downtown Ukiah, It is approximately the same distance Tom The existing courthouse as the Civit cent Car alternative and adjacent to troth the P#rkins Street Gateway and railroad The location provides the opportunity to Oreate-astrong I t space won flie primary sbvet entrance into the downtown, which is underdeveloped and Prime for to two-storiestwo-stories because of the airport appro4ch andparte t it the laq m of rand, the building footphints could be on, largedto accommodate,the require square fbatage, rr33r� Physical Elements ftom wast to east, and along with the small city perk to tits area of theproperly, would proWde, an outstanding aper(, space feature. Acuess to the, site would be. provided- from Parkins. S-treettrom, the rorty Leslie Street from ttie eats, and potentially Cray art from the wesL 'the railroad tracks are adjacent to the west, and could provide additional access a dtor a trap po ti r alternative In thefur. ul a- Cestgnea ana,conmqtea in compliancewail these r tri tion$ Turin Depot Alternative Public Street and Alleyways Three pltr, streets front fhestudy area, These include East Perkins Street (aderfal), Leslie Street, and Clay 8treeL No alleyways exist in the study area. All the adjoining public streets have the capacity 'to accornet odatO the traffic generaied by the new Courthouse, The railroad crossing at Clay Street has not been used in the recent past. The City's past pos(floo has been that the crossing was never formally abandoned and is still valid. HIM= Conservation Service in Land." Tills Map "Unit' ranging front 500 to 1,40C a densely developed urbf areas covered bv concreti of Agriculture — Soil clas0ed as "Urban plains at. elevations ?roperky is situated in MSL and consists of There is known soft contamination on the eastern portion of the site. Preliminary studies reveal that contaminated so!] would likely have to be removed forgeotechnical construction requirements, which would add costs to file project, ME= The Ukiah 'Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, Wilch traverses the valley to the east and north of the City, Whilethis fault is situated in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as mapped by the cStale Division of Mines and Geology, the subject property lying to the west and south Is well outside cyf it and therefore not subject to the requirements of the Art, 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. March gr"W Historic PreservationlSite History A-caordlng to prepared In I colonial reviv, The train depot In IR99 Staff from the City eleotri r, water and wastewater divisions have indicated that all public utilities are available to serve the project, site, including, electric, ge Gable., water and sanitary sewer, Future development of a Coorthouse and Justice Building would be ubject to the California Code of Regulatlons; Title 24, Part 6 — Energy Conservation, which requires energy conservation design and constVon methods, 'Me City would encourage energy conservation site preparation and construction methods not speciftcally required by the Building Code. These could Include recycling of demolition debris, low impact development, (LID) storrin, water management, passive solar building orientation, active solar heating infrastructure, low volatile organic compound (VOC) paint and rpets, etc. rw"-Wlwn Mika Onwrom. R&*sWo Nz---'t PON 20 The City owns and operates its own electric utility and may be to a posltlon to provide Incentives to mite project, such as partial (und(ng through tt public Benefits Program for solar voltaic array that could provide all or a portion of the electrical needs for the project. Infrastructure Availability Parcel n r ht /Control, Zoning, Size, Designations, and Existing Uses 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 finano-Ing of the new Justice Building, o rnur ltV service partners and County Social Services are also dispersed throughout the City, but most are situated In, close proximity to the historic downtown. rel Plan and Zoning Consistency The existing sou house and the proposed Civic Center Campus site is designated as CYC" (Commercial) on the Ukiah General plan land use map and classified as `C-1," (Community Commercial) on, ffie Ukiah zoning map, professional offim, s and laid uses involving assemblages of people are, permitted In this zoning district, and therefore neer courthouse uld h consistent with � "Cn' d signation and " �l" la sift lore Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area The Chic Center Capipuss site is Iocated within the adopted Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Area,which could potentially participate flnanciMly In the project. Ii4Ti€dh M The Ukiah Redevelopment r y discussing _ pos-sible participation in the c uric louse relocation project. This participation could include financial sop rip dedication of land for parking, electrical utility assistance, and other means for providing, economic participation, Summary of Opportunifiesfor the Train Depot Alternative Site The Frain Depot Afternative 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 Cityrtccfp tin i the pr t Adjacent t and within walking distance from the Historic Downtmm The site is within the new downtown zoning district (form based e) area, which would provide site planning and design it_eXibility. 4. The property is large nd could easily amommodate a new two-story OOrfk US two-story Justice Building, all required parking, Gibson Creek restoration, and open spa r ThOsile i largely nt with no residential tructur t The small historic Tiah train depot building is located on the site, which vmuld add a chan-nirg amenity and destination attraction. . The site is in closeproximity ity restauranits, retail opportunities, rr i nal and the Ukiah Valley Medical Center. . The site is located € n a major transportation corrid r and the NWP railroad right l` way. The four parcel site is under two omershfps, rather then multiple ownerships, pot6ntlally making if easier to seek acqpisition oruse ofthe propel.. , The property represents a primeinfill s[te and all utliftles and public services are available to serve the site, vovavm W"o c Ar 23 Attachment I March 3, 2009 Corrospondence Tummi-al eta rnro Erf (rj'unfnttufm PPF4Cr OF nit OFFICE 017 GfIURT CONSTRUMON ANO MANAGIFIAM97 �Wtphwta 415-86541XV - TDDAJSW5,4"_722 ROHA!-j- M, aw An -,Iv of r-Wro Ow IWIdul don March 3t 2DO9 TvlsCalhilixu E,Qopoudc Developmax 149niago: AeeauY CIEY Ofu6ftb Ave ",e Ubuk Wifbmifi 9502 RR New Uldah Caurthom-1-1rojW- D= h4A, Mallon I A M C V I G Put L I PLV " A -1 b 0 W V�V R 41 L T CT9's tx*v �-- Filma-, 01fat a Own rt,J K1=qWWWi A -c yoi-T mkv jutow, iin atub2008 Lht SAHte 1C&JEM'rP- IPMed tmd the gpvTavor gigacd j JaW - lat , Creum f�* -u Biti a" � -BW IS -- Sill 1407 (Ftnttal� Whick in , PC q and Ms- �vcb' to ftitld and lizance up to 55 WIliou M, t" court fixility ix feu thnughou't flit otge, The juffinip.j Wiffimit. Eobszquoudly -adupted A ljst of 41 bi.-j �jtjjj c=itul pTujrvO in 34 cGlInt'i0s J() bo hndf 4 b -y Or, Bit; -,A'biQb imt4des the 9W4nn of The new m- urdmit�e Li UP3ah, The AdTnWdve Offica of the Couits LADC), The staff oigguiz�tjnu to ffit itidielal Caulfeil, intendis to thalt. Omse prqftals 0:9,rapidly 89 pamabla Whila Judkitil Cn tail N C M- licy r qjj L a onwp4tivo Oftgeldodari, procass, timing of proj=( hn3jim, enteflav will dip Ed, ill pati; GO Lbe, outfammic, upportimities unaciated Witty mcl pmjrc;L Fw-urnia uppor[unitics inchide firmn6al eoutniTu'limis, lend dvae;vnA, ny mdumd owt Ind srquisiqons i"N7401 C0,10-ary N?mMian WIM17-10% 24 The p uIrpose �'Uf this le a- ts to de-terwifte whetbar lite Citly bag one or maye Bunt fflt-d ec;ollanlic opparl'ani-des for lite proposed atouff capital -ca irflay j3roject- We hairs idonlified the, j5x-bIbmnRJT 54C M426 TeqQit`etUVjITS 7011tle propOP--d CA:PIMI-Oatlay pMjCe4 based on than aumber of, courtioums to bei prmided in tez project- Front this, we have apps staid jht �Oza of the p� mquiroa towrawod[stc the prujazt to br'. In the M'ge of betweun 43 and, 5g5 saes, aG-Eurrimy, a rn-guly sha*- IQ t before setbadt-� and excludirig, optal space afloaadoDs. As the projeol (it'velop% sorog &!#uslinenTs to ThIc sly and it area for The Pi-qjca ZOILY be Made. Also, a this stage of the P-mjemt, (lit, geagrapbiie 'Data mdurie-8 for the V—ffe OM LIZ -T 'trito I)Q' taliame of tl-it incorporzted chy limits. fit. is IIJVJUW counoil you to U-hlizt- as compyahmsfvu set of Atexfa wbich establish, conn"nent "d objeebve ineasures It"rn idcntisits requirenlraw fm new cum mal PtDv-"jTf detnormtrahle measuro�% for rxntpt�dthe emmation ofpotiratiaf cox-dinuut ssite& .qit(*, �elcafion, cdtetia orre Wlortd P-9 necessary to Ww into amount, the parficidar .41ixkg f , es to thi ecjuij,em=AEi ozo-a projo-cl. For ffie pwpm of carisidmIng msp*ni s solicitation, we rNuest you pvvide tis with vurio infonnation on the Site aT dites you propose, as folkmv Site coynexA and Location Inforntatton physied Fienicals w, Public Swears and Alleyways Subsurface0ant acb-Dicat al ons Seisrnlu ,. Enargy Conselvation/bOlifles M storic Presermdon/Si1c Emery E�dsdng Use, Owoership and Cnntrol PrWdmitY to CbuntY jUstict, Paftnets Rod Community SeMccs All rmon5t-s to thio WUur, bould Ittmat tct by -N—fg;b 31, Z;.'Q�O ,'pnses should take 011C Ofthe fell fat r; v R m-iiirioni fnA data govtxning body witli jwIsdic4ion 0 Lemw signed by yp" ShotAd additionat linte- be natd6d- ess la subinit emt request to this dMau Oddr , For land donations or reduced cost arquisidanx, pleaw pro)?idp- as arurtlt see spy dfle inforomtion — including the tackrticst aftribrrtc5 Iftied above — us passibb,,t For finartclal e-unt4butions. plz&t state the prop"ed terms sn4 aondbJunti of the contribution, antl tbL- sonme of AmdIng, Slipuld you 1-4ve =y quesHons r -,r m.juirr darifloation, pfAldlah, Robinson 4L 41546-5 5346 or g your inquiries to o meeonarrnartunifies DawnIMP, L�Ooh �41,Ahww W"JuPOW! fdamb, 203p 25 Tbank you very in u6h, fbT your con sidtmtion wid we I aukfDrwarvJ- to bmingy from you. BH/Cld M", Tiou Clndet�, R Mayfield0ftesidmig Jugge, Supodor Court ea4ondvaino County B M-amin D, Stougk Executive Oil zer, Supmior Cbrart of Me.-ildoel' a Com, y Ms.. Emico civ S Its, Red SstaW MmW, Adminisbwave Offico of the Catul, Office of Comt Catstmation mid Managemmit MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CARRE BROWN FIRST DISTRICT VICE -CHAIR JOHN MCCOWEN SECOND DISTRICT JOHN PINCHES THIRD DISTRICT CHAIR KENDALL SMITH FOURTH DISTRICT J. DAVID COLFAX FIFTH DISTRICT BOARD RESOURCE INFORMATION: OFFICE: (707) 463-4221 FAX: (707) 463-4245 EMAIL THE BOARD: BOS @CO.M ENDOCINO. CA.US WEBSITE: W W W.CO.MENDOCINO.CA.US/SOS WATCH LIVE BOARD MEETINGS VIA WEB STREAMING WWW. CO.MFNDO CINO.CA. US/BOS BOARD ACTION MINUTES (SEE LAST PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION) NEXT MEETING (AGENDAS ARE POSTED BY NOON ON THURSDAYS) W W W.CO.MENDOCINO.CA.US/BOS ACTIONMENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES2009 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF MENDOCINO o STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAIR STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS (PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §25150) ❑ REGULAR MEETING Q SPECIAL SESSION ❑ PLANNING MATTERS JOINT SESSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPEVISORS AND THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL rresent: uarre brown, John McCowen, John Pinches, Kendall Smith, and J. David Colfax. Chair Pinches presiding. Meeting convened at 4:09 p.m. Ukiah City Council members Doug Crane, Mari Rodin, Benj Thomas, and Mary Anne Landis; and Mayor Phil Baldwin Staff Present: Mr. Tom Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer; Ms. Jeanine B. Nadel, County Counsel; Ms. Kristi Furman, Clerk of the Board; Ms. Jane Chambers, Ukiah City Manager; Mr. Dave Rapport, Ukiah City Attorney; and Ms. JoAnne Currie, Deputy City Clerk. f-1cstPnLer/5: v,nair rincnes; mr. 1 o mitcrlell, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Phil Dow, Executive Director, Mendocino Council of Governments. Board Action: Upon motion by Supervisor McCowen, seconded by Supervisor Smith, and carried unanimously; IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors accepts the report and directs the Executive Office and staff to work with the City and the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), and refers the issue to the Public Resources Committee. Presenter/s: Chair Pinches; Mr. Tom Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer; and Mayor Baldwin. Mayor Baldwin reported that the City's appointed representatives to address the issue are Council members Crane and Rodin. Board Action: No action taken. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS — ACTION MINUTES — APRIL 21, 2009 PAGE 148 • DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON STATUS OF COURT FACILITIES PLANNING FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FUNDED BY THE jUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS (AOC) Presenter/s: Chair Pinches; Mr. Tom Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer; and Ms. Jane Chambers, Ukiah City Manager. Public Comment: Mr. Howard Egan; Mr. Ben Stough, Court Administrator; Mr. Charley Stump, City Planning Director. Board Action: Upon motion by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor Colfax, and carried unanimously; IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors hears the City concerns about the project and refers the matter to the Criminal Justice Committee for further discussion with the Executive Office regarding negotiations. Board Member Directive: BY ORDER OF THE CHAIR the Criminal Justice Committee is further directed to work closely with the City Committee (Council members Landis and Rodin) on the Courthouse issue. AGENDA ITEM No.3 —'OTHER BUSINESS • PUBLIC EXPRESSION ■ MATTERS FROM STAFF • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Presenter/s: Chair Pinches. Board Action: No action taken. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURNED AT 6:00 P.M. (Recording End) Attest: KRISTI FURMAN Clerk of the Board JOHN PIN ES, Chair NOTICE: PUBLISHED MINUTES OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS Effective March 1, 2009, Board. of Supervisors minutes will be produced in "action only" format, As an alternative service, public access to recorded Board proceedings will -,be available ori the Board of Supervisors' website in indexed audio format ® LIVE WEB STREAMING OF BOARD, MEETINGSis now available through Ukiah Valley Community Television: www,uvctvorg/oliair (Requires Windciws Media `Tlayer'(Version 9�). If technical<assistance "is needed, please contact Ukiah Valley Community Television at (707) 357-0624 • Minutes are considered draft:until adopted/approved by the Board of S uperAsors • The Board of Supervisors' action minutes are also posted on the County of Mendocino website at: \NTWW.CO.Ille.nctocijio.ca.us/l)os 11 s To request an official record of a meeting of the Mendocino County Board of Supen4sors, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (707) 453-4221 ® Please ''reference the departmental website to obtain additional resource' information for the Board of Supervisors and Clerk of the Board: www.co.'metidoci.iio.c,.t.Ll54)0.", Thank you for your interest in tlie, proceedings of the Mendocino County Boarcl ofSuyervisaxs