Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-24 written objections of planCOUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 90-24 RESOLUTION OF THE cITy COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITrEN OBJECTIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Section 33000 et seq.), the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of Ukiah (the "City Council") a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Ukiah Redevelopment Project (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 1, 1989, on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and on certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that before adopting the redevelopment plan, the legislative body shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity and shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: UKI/ResCCWrOb/CDC 11/9/89 Section 1. The City Council has considered all evidence and testimony on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and has responded in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing, as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the written findings in response to each written objection of affected property owners and taxing entities as set forth in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Wattenburger, Schneiter, Hickey and Mayor Henderson NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Shoemaker ABSTAIN: , 1989, by the Mayork-~ "'-' ~ify Clerk // UKI/ResCCWrOb/CDC 2 11/9/89 EXHIBIT A COMMENTS, RESPONSES, AND PROPOSED FINDI1NGS IN RESPONSE TO CERTAIN WRITTEN OBJECTIONS Redevelopment Agency Staff has received ten written communications regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan. In accordance with Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law, Section I below outlines all written communications received by the Agency either before,during or after the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and the responses to the written communications, and Section II below sets forth the proposed findings in response to the written objections from affected property owners or taxing entities. SECTION I: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND RESPONSES 1. Letter from Irmita Hitchcock, received October 31, 1989 Ms. Hitchcock does not object to redevelopment plan, but wants to know if she will be allowed to make landscape improvements to her property. Response: The Redevelopment Plan does not prohibit the installation of landscape improvements to the subject property. 2. Letter from L. 1. Lee, dated October 30, 1989 Mr. Lee does not want his property condemned. Response: The proposed projects in the Redevelopment Plan do require the acquisition or condemnation of the subject property and there is no proposal to do so. However, there may be street beautification improvements on State Street, and if there are low- and moderate-income residential units on the subject property, housing funds may be available to the owner for improvements to the units or for rental subsidies. 3. Letter from Daisy Norberry, received October 24, 1989 Ms. Norberry states the proposed Redevelopment Plan is not necessary and that it would cost too much. She does not want to have to give up her home. Response: Appendix B of the Report to Council sets forth the blighted conditions that exist in the Redevelopment Project Area. Section VI of the Report to Council explains why redevelopment financing is necessary to correct the blighted conditions, and includes an explanation of how the redevelopment projects UKI/ObjFdngs/CDC 11/9/89 will be paid for and a determination that the redevelopment project is economically feasible. As Ms. Norberry states, her property is "in good shape and is not an eyesore." The public improvements proposed do not require the acquisition of the subject property and there is no proposal to do so.. 4. Letter from Iohn Mayfield, dated October 25, 1989 Mr. Mayfield opposes the scope and size of the proposed redevelopment project. Response: The reasons for the selection of the Project Area are contained in Section III of the Report to Council, and the evidence of blight is contained in Appendix B of the Report to Council. Also, see the response to Comments 5 and 7. 5. Letter fom County of Mendocino, dated November 1, 1989 The County reiterated concerns as set forth in an attached memorandum from Michael Scannell, dated July 13, 1989, which was previously submitted to the Agency as part of the Fiscal Review Committee's Report. Response: The concerns raised in Mr. Scannell's memorandum are already part of the record of the joint public hearing, as it is part of the Agency's Report to Council. In addition, written responses to those concerns are also part of the Agency's Report to Council and, therefore, already part of the record of the joint public hearing, and are incorporated herein by reference (see Section XVI of the Report to Council). Finally, in response to concerns regarding the size of the Project Area and vacant land with the area, the Agency has referred portions of the Project Area to the Planning Commission to determine whether they should be deleted. 6. Letter from North Counties Engineering Company, dated October 31, 1989 There are numberous comments numbered 1 through 9 in this letter, therefore it is attached as Exhibit A-1. Response: The following responses are lettered a. through i. through 9 to correlate with the comments numbered 1 though 9 respectively in the letter. a. This is a key element in the Redevelopment Plan. b, The EIR must address impacts of a project. Statements regarding impacts are straight forward and are not intended as a public relations statement. UK~ I O~jFdngs l CDC 2 1119189 C. The Redevelopment Plan has a number of goals and objectives, one of which is to increase or improve the supply of low- and moderate- income housing. Removing the Circle Trailer Park would not be consistent with this goal. de Additional fire personnel may be necessary if increased development occurs. Sprinklers will provide assistance, but new large scale facilities may create new situations for fire protection. e. Landscaping will be required for new development. The replace- ment factor is viewed as a minimum, not a maximum. The reference to the potential removal of the existing landscape or structures is for new construction. It's true that there may be more landscaping after new development, however, the existing plant material may be removed prior to new development. g. The EIR identifies potential possible impacts. An obvious mitigation of the potential visual problem due to parking facilities is proper design. h. The buildings are included in the City's Architectural and Historical Resources Inventory Report" and, thus, are historical resources to be addressed. Specific inspections of the condition of the buildings were not done. Monies for use in the URM program are identified in the Redevelop- Plan preliminary budget. The City is currently pursuing a process to meet the current state law regarding unreinforced masonry buildings. 7. Letter from Redwood Legal Assistance, dated October 31, 1989 ao Commentor states that the designated blighted area includes extensive areas which cannot legally be defined as blighted. Response: See the response to this comment, attached as Exhibit A-2, and incorporated herein by reference. Commentor states that a method or plan for relocation is not contained in the Agency's Report to the City Council. Response: This is incorrect. The method or plan for relocation is contained on pages 18 and 19 of the Agency's Report to Council. In addition, Section 313 of the proposed Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance and payments. U~ I ~]~Fa~ I CDC 3 1119/89 Ce d. Commentor states the neighborhood impact report contained in the Agency's Report to Coundl is inadequate. Response: Section 33352 (1) of the Community Redevelopment Law describes the elements where detail is required for the neighborhood impact report. Those elements are contained on pages 21 through 23 of the Report to Coundl. As to subsections (1) and (2) of Section 33352(1), there are no low- and moderate-income housing units that are expected to be destroyed or removed from the market as part of the Redevelopment Project and no persons and familes of low- and moderate income are expected_to be displaced by the Redevelopment Project. The increase in the supply of low- and moderate-income housing units will be as a result of the investment by the Agency of tax increment monies to improve and increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. Specific impacts upon the neighborhoods in which the monies will be expended cannot be made until specific projects or programs have been developed. Commentor states that there is no basis for the claim that a "significant increase in real property value may be expected". Response:The increase in real property values are expected due to new construction, the rehabilitation of private properties and better street circulation (see page 23 of the Report to Council). Commentor states that the Neighborhood Impact Report must deal with the effect of the Redevelopment Plan on property assessments and taxes. Response: Property owners and renters within the Project Area will not have .tax rates increased because of the establishment of the Redevelopment Project Area. Unless major improvements are made to a specific property, that property will not be reassessed because of redevelopment. We are not aware of any "losses" that will be incurred because of the establishment of the Redevelopment Project Area or the construction of the County Complex. Commentor states that the Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately provide for housing needs of low- and moderate-income persons who reside within the Project Area. Response: See comment in c. above as to Section 33352 (1). The Supplemental Draft EIR addresses the impacts of the proposed County facilities if built within a certain geographic area, it does not state the County facilities will be or must be built on the Circle Trailer Park site. UKI/Obj~Fdngs/CDC 4 11/9/89 The Agency plans on adopting as a mitigation measure the commitment that it will not displace residents of the Circle Trailer Park. In addition, a monitoring program is proposed to be adopted that will ensure that the County facilities will not cause displacement of the Circle Trailer Park residents. ge g. Commentor also states that the Uptown Trailer Park and other residential units will be displaced due to their proximity to the proposed County facilities. The Agency has no plan to displace these units as part of its redevelopment project, and there is no evidence that the proposed County Complex will cause displacement of residential units just because of its proximity to those units. Letter from Kate Riley, dated October 12, 1989 Ms. Riley requests answers to the following questions: a. Does the Agency have the right to eminent domain and can the Agency condemn homes from property owners within the Project Area? Response: Yes, the Agency has the authority to condemn all property within the Project Area, however, the projects described in the Redevelopment Plan do not require or propose any eminent domain or condemnation of residential units. bo Is the Agency willing to make guaranteed assurances that it will not condemn homes and take them from their owners? Ce Response: The Agency has not made guarantees regarding condemnation. The Redevelopment Plan, however, includes no projects which would require the condemnation of homes. Why are their attractive residential areas with the Project Area? Response: All buildings within a Project Area are not required to be blighted. Areas, buildings or improvements which are not blighted may be included in a Project Area if it is necessary for the overall effective redevelopment of the entire area. For instance, if there are certain public improvements, such as sewer or storm drain improvements needed in an area- where the buildings themselves are not blighted, the area as a whole would be included in the Project Area, or, if there are homes within an attractive area that do need rehabilitation the homes in the block will be included within a Project Area. UKI I ObjFclngs l CDC 1119189 . 10. de Ms. Riley believes that her property taxes will be used to redevelop private businesses in downtown and that it will erode the future security of her neighborhood. Response: The increases in taxes which the Agency will be using will be primarily generated from new commercial and industrial development which will be stimulated as a result of the Agency's redevelopment efforts. In addition, at least 20% of the Agency tax increment monies will be used to improve or increase the supply of low- and moderate-income housing, and monies will be used for traffic circulation and storm drain improvements throughout the Project Area,and not just for downtown businesses. Letter from Myrtle Turner, dated October 18, 1989 Ms. Turner does not want her property condemned. Response: Ms. Turner lives on Perkins Street, the beautification and widening of which is a public project in the Redevelopment Plan. Neither of these proposals should necessitate removal of structures. She is located on the south side of the street, and the widening is to occur on the north side. There is no intent to "take" homes because of appearance. Assistance to bring units up to safe and healthy standard levels may be provided depending upon income levels. Letter from Ukiah Community Center Suggests that the Agency (a) establish priority for the expenditure of housing funds pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law based on the assessed needs as they appear in the City's Housing Element; (b) create a policy or policies to protect the affordability and availability of the housing stock and prevent homelessness; and (c) meet with community agencies and individ- uals on development of housing policies and updating the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. Response: The low- and moderate-income housing issues expressed by the Ukiah Community Center are being addressed in a resolution to be adopted by the Agency. A housing needs assessment and General Plan Housing Element amendment are proposed, as well as establishment of a low- and moderate-income housing committee to make recommendations regarding expenditure of housing monies. This committee could also recommend policies for affordability and homelessness. Initiation of this committee is proposed within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the ordinance instead of the suggested LV~ I C~ojFdngs l CDC 6 1119189 thirty (30) days, in order to coincide with the time the Redevelopment Plan will be validated.. SECTION II: FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS OR TAXING ENTITIES As to the property owners concerns as to whether the Agency was going to condemn their property and the Agency's eminent domain authority (see Comments 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9), the City Council hereby finds that eminent domain is necessary to carry out the goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation of the downtown area, but that the projects in the Redevelopment Plan do not require the displacement of residents from their homes. 2. As to Ms. Norberry's comment that redevelopment is not necessary and would cost too much (Comment 3), the City Council hereby finds that (a) redevelopment is necessary to eliminate blight as substantiated in Sections IV and VII of the Report to Council; and (b) redevelopment is economically feasible, as substantiated in Section VI of the Report to Council. ge , As to Mr. Mayfield's objections to the size and scope of the Project (Comment 4), the City Council hereby finds that (a) the Project Area is blighted; and (b) the areas that are not blighted are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area as a whole and are not included for the sole purpose of obtaining tax increments. The facts that substantiate these findings are contained in Section III and IV of the Agency's Report to Council. As to the County of Mendocino's comments (Comment 5), the City Council hereby finds the following: There will not be a financial burden or detriment to the County as a result of the Redevelopment Project. This finding is based on the following: (1) any low- and moderate-income housing funds will be used for housing only within the City limits; (2) the housing funds may be used for a variety of purposes other than for new construction, such as, rehabilitation of existing units, subsidies for existing low- and moderate-income persons who are currently paying more than they can afford, subsidies for existing homeless and transient persons to help them in obtaining affordable housing; and (3) in the event the County should provide evidence that the Redevelopment Project will result in a financial burden or detriment to them, the Agency will enter into a pass-through agreement to alleviate such proven financial detriment or burden. be The projected growth within the proposed Redevelopment Project Area is based on the projections in the City's General Plan, and not on projected additional growth due to the proposed Redevelopment UKI I ObjFdngs l CDC 11/9/89 C~ d, e. Project. The proposed public improvement projects in the Redevelopment Plan were included in order to alleviate existing blighting influences and future blighting influences due to the projected growth in the City's General Plan. The Project Area is a blighted one. This finding is based on the facts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Section II. The Project Area is predominantly urbanized. This finding is based on evidence contained on page 7 of Appendix B of the Agency's Report to Council and the further clarification of this matter as set forth in the Agency's former response to this issue contained in Section XVI of the Agency's Report to Council. The Project Area was selected based on blighted conditions and the need to redevelop the area as a whole for effective redevelopment, and not for the purpose of obtaining tax increment revenues. This finding is based on the same facts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Section II. . There are no other reasonable means, without redevelopment, to finance the proposed redevelopment projects. This finding is based on evidence contained in Sections VI and XVI of the Agency's Report to Council. The Agency has provided all written information it possesses as to known public or private development planned within the Project Area. This finding is based on the Agency's former response to this issue contained in Section XVI of the Agency's Report to Council. As to Ms. Riley's comments as to why attractive homes are in the Project Area and her understanding that residential neighborhoods are included to provide a tax base to effect commercial development (Comment 8), the City Council hereby finds that (a) the inclusion of nonblighted areas are necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Project Area as a whole; and (b) residential areas are not being included to generate tax base. These findings are based on the reasons for selecting the Project Area as contained in Section IlIof the Agency's Report to Council; the reasons for the inclusion of some nonblighted areas as set forth in Section XVI of the Report to Council and in the response to Comment 7. a. above; and the fact that residential areas are included for the purposes of providing assistance to some homes, particularly those homes occupied by low- and moderate- income persons and by constructing certain public improvements which will benefit residential areas as well as commercial areas. LV~/C~ojFdn~s/ClVC $ 11/9/89 EXHIBIT A-1 NORTH COUNTIES I::-NGINEERIN COMPANY IF~ 42~'TALMAGIE ROAD ' UKIAH. CA 95482 · (7071 462-I October 31, 1989 Mr. Michael F. Harris Assistant Redevelopment Director City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Mike; In reviewing the Supplemental Draft EIR for the Redevelopment Plan I would submit the following comments: 1. Keeping the County Administration Complex downtown is essential to the lifeblood of the downtown area. 2. If the City is really serious about redevelopment proposals for projects such as the County Administration Building, it needs to be put forth in a more positive manner; otherwise, negative statements regarding im- pacts will come back to haunt the City later on. 3. ~age 12 -- The Circle Trailer Park is definitely not a quality addition to the downtown area. Starting off with a recommendation ~o keep this facility is not consistent with a good redevelopment plan. 4. ~-- By removing older unsprinklered structures and replacing them with new structures that are built to existing fire codes, less fire protection personnel should be required not more. 5. P_~e 37 -- The project is not the removal of existing trees, but rather redevelopment of blighted areas which will be replaced with modern design and land- scaping. There will be an increase in vegetation as the end result. Further, stating that three (3) mature trees should be replaced for each tree removed is arbitrary, negative and an insult to the end project designer. 6. Pa_~'e '40 -- The statement that "loss of existing trees is a significant impact upon song birds" gives the Mr. Michael F. Harris October 31, 1989 Page 2 impression that the project is a destruction operation when, in fact, it is a redevelopment project. The result of the redevelopment project will be more trees and vegetation, not less. . · ~ 42 -- By saying that the parking could "distract" from the County Administration Complex assumes poor design from the onstart. By hiring qualified design professionals and by including adequate plan review this kind of poor design should not be probably. Page 45 -- Stating that the "Wine & Chease" building and the "Floral Arts/PhotoFinish" buildings should be saved and their current use continued is somewhat contrary to the Redevelopment Plan in that the "Wine & Cheese" building is used in the Redevelopment Agency's Preliminary Report as an example of blight. Also, the entire second floor of the "Floral Arts/Photo Finish" building which is a classic example of a dangerous unreinfo~ced masonry building,is vacant. This building is a firetrap of the first order. o The City needs to come to grips with the unreinforced masonry building issue and the fact that bringing these buildings up to a safe condition is economically difficult if not impossible. However, to someone crushed under the ruins of one of these buildings the fact that the building has been classified as an "historic building" will be of little comfort. I believe the City is at a point where redevelopment, the un- reinforced masonry buildings issue and future growth potential provides a planning opportunity that can make significant positive changes in the future of Ukiah. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. cy R. Watson P~./C. E. 17796 GLA: b s FROM P. 1 EXHIBIT A-2 Urban Planning, Community Development, & Public Faollltlee Consultant 6644 ASCOT DRIVE · OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 94611 Telophone~. $an Flanulsc, o; (415) 495-5110 · Oaklar'lO: (41,5) 5,.30-7229 6 November 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 9§482 Dear Mayol' and Members of the City Council: This letter is in response to certain issues raised in the October 31, 1989 memorandum from Redwood Legal Assistance concerning their ob- jections to the proposed Ukiah Redevelopment Plan. The following areas of concern are covered: o The requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law o Adequacy of Evidence Supporting a Finding of Blight o Inclusion of Non-Blighted Areas o Conformity with the "Predominantly Urbanized" Requirements of State Law The City's redevelopment counsel (McDonough, Holland, & Allen), city staff, or other consultants will ~espond to othe~ issues raised by Redwood Legal Assistance. ,THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW The Finding of Blight Section 33367 of the Community Redevelopment Law requires that several findings be made in the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan. Among these is a finding that "The project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes deela~,ed in this pe~t" JOHN B. DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES The ordinance is adopted by the legislative body of the community which, in the case of Uhiah, is the City Council. In adopting the ordinance, the City Council takes into consideration w~ltten and oral evidence, including the Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Although the evidence may come from city staff, consultants, and other sources, the final determination of blight i~ the responsibility of the City Coun- cil. Relevant Sections of the Cor,,muntty. Redevelopment Law Three sections of the California Community Redevelopment Law are particularly relevant to the issues cited above: o Section 33031 which pertains primarily to the physical charac- te-ristie~---6f-b-iight o Section 33032 which pertains to other characteristics of blight including economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from, among other things, bad subdivision practices, inadequate public improvements, depreciated values, and impaired invest- ment~ o Section 33312 which provides a definition of a project area and guideIines fo~. the definition of a "predominantly urbanized" area It is important to note that the Community Redevelopment Law ~eeognizes that all of the conditions mentioned in these sections are unlikely to be present in a single redevelopment project. In fact, Section 33030 states in part that "A blighted area is one which is char~[6}~ize~l by one or more of those conditions set forth in Sections 33031 or 33032..." __A::=D_~U__ACY OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTIN~__A FINDING OF BLIGHT. In the opinion of the consultant there is evidence sufficient to support a finding of blight for the redevelopment project area as currently drawn. This opinion is supported by the following discussion: Buildin[~ C on dit_i_o_n_ SU_!~ve_ ¥ An extraordinary effort was made to evaluate generally the condi- tion of every building within the proposed redevelopment area. A total of 2,464 buildings were rated on a scale of 1 (very extensive physical and/or structural deficiencies) to 5 (generally excellent condition). Page 2 FROM 11. 8.1989 17~2 P. 2 JOHN B, DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES To ensure consistency, every building was rated personally by the consultant, Mr. Dykstra. The rating system was developed by Mr, Dykstra in the mid 1960's and has been used successfully in seven other redevelopment projects. The experience and qualifications of Mr. Dykstra as an expert in the field of redevelopment are sum- marized in Exhibit A. Redwood Legal Assistance selected a single block to illustrate its concerns about the adequacy of the consultant's evaluation of building conditions. In that block (bounded by Morris, Oak, Henry, and North Pine) Redwood Legal Assistance specifically identifies four houses (303 Morris, 474 North Oak, 486 North Oak, and 447 North Pine) and states that these buildings "appear to be in pristine condition." The condition of these houses has been reevaluated by the consultant and the consultant finds nothing to Justify a change in the building condition ratings originally as- signed. Although they are attractive and show considerable ears, they are neither "p~Istine" as defined by the dictionary* nor are they in a eonclitton to warrant a rating of 5, as seems to be sug- gested. Building Conditions within the Area The building condition survey revealed a wide range of building deficiencies in the redevelopment project area. Of the 2,464 build- ings rated, ~06 or 37 percent have serious deficiencies. A review of the tables, maps, and photographic evidence will reveal that these deficient structures are generally distributed throughout the project area. Many of the structures in the project area are dilapidated or seri- ously deteriorated. Although no interior inspections were made, it iS not unreasonable to conclude that most if not ~11 of these struc- tures, as well as some other structures in higher rating categories have structural problems, building code violations, and health and safety deficiencies to one degree or another. Observations made by the consultant also provided indications of overcrowding and unhealthly living conditions. *The AmeriCan Heritage DiCfiOn-a-~, of the English Language, 1979: "Pristine... 1. Of, pertaining to, or typical of the earliest time or condition; primitive or original. 2. Remaining in a pure state~ uncor- rupted." Page 3 . JOHN B. DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES All of these conditions are particularly applicable to a finding of blight under the provisions of Section 33031 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The Mixed Use Character of the Project Area Although there are a few relatively clearly defined residential and commercial areas within the redevelopment project, a very large part of the total project, area suffers from chaotic mixtures of land uses. There are numerous examples of undesirable land use rela- tionships. As is pointed out in Appendix B of the ]Existing Con- dttions Report, Memoranda Regarding Fire Protection Problems and Hazards, potentially life threatening uses (such as ehemlcal storage facilities, fuel storage bulk plants, and large propane tanks) are located in close proximity to residential uses. In many eases residences are heavily impacted by traffic movements and noise and, in some cases, by dust from unpaved streets. Frequently these conditions adversely affect the quality of life in individual residences and in residential neighborhoods. The mixed use character of the area and the conditions cited above are conducive to depreciated values and economic maladjustment as provided for under Section 33032 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence of Poor Subdivision Practices ,, An examination of the maps provided in the Report on the Redevel- opment Plan reveals considerable evidence of irregular lot formation and substandard subdivision practices. In the opinion of the consultant these conditions contribute to blight and are conducive to depreciated values and economic maladjustment within the area. As such they are directly applica- ble to a finding of blight under 33032 of the Community Redevelop- ment Law. Evidence of Inadequate Public I_.m_provemen_ts Conversations with city staff, field surveys, and Appendix D of the Hxisting Conditions Report, Memorandum Regarding Deficient Public Facilities, have provided the consultant with evidence of public improvement inadequacies. Page 4 FROM . 11. 8.1989 17~54 P. 4 JOHN B, DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES These deflcienolos are directly relevant to a finding of blight under 33032 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Evidence of Depreciated Values, I_mpaired Investments, and Social and Economic' MaladjuStment Contrary to the allegation of Redwood Legal Assistance, there are a number of conditions which can reasonably permit a cor:clusion that there are depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment in the redevelopment project area. Such conditions include vacant or underutilized commercial properties, vacant or possibly abandoned residential buildings, the chaotic mixture of land uses in the area, irregular and substandard lots, and the lack of adequate public improvements, All of these con- dltlons, either individually or collectively, are very likely to have adversely impacted property values and investments in various parts of the project area. The contention of real estate agent, Hlenort Seki, "that real estate prices (sic) in Uklah within the last two years have not depreci- ated, but rather have considerably appreciated", submitted as l~xhibit B of the Redwood Legal Assistance memorandum, may well be accurate, but is nevertheless tr~'elevant. ~lPat, the issue is not prices but values. Second, the issue is not Ukiah as a city, but the redevelopment project area and various parts of the project are~, The consultant is confident that there are various parts of the project area that have been adversely affected by the conditions cited above. The consultant is also confident that these conditions have resulted in depreciated values and impaired investments as provided for in Section 33032. INCLUSION OF NON BLIGHTED AREAS · The consultant understands that the boundaries of the proposed rede- velopment pro]eot were recommended by a citizens committee p~lor to 1985. The bounder"les recommended at that time were analyzed in a 1985 redevelopment feasibility study by Shaw and Associates and became the framework for the Redevelopment Plan St~'ategy prepared in 1989 by Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons and John B. Dykstra & Associates, and the Redevelopment Plan and related documents prepared in 1988 and 1989. Page 5 F~0H 11. 9. 19~9 17=~4 P. 5 JOHN B. DYKSTRA & ASSOCIATES In the opinion of the consultant, nearly all of the redevelopment project area qualifies as being blighted In te~ms of one or more blighting factors cited above. However, some of the project area does include areas which do not exhibit the degree of blight found elsewhere in the rede- velopment area. Two of these areas are tile Pear Tree Shopping Center and some surrounding area and part of the Oak Manor subdivision east of the freeway. The Pear Tree Shopping Center was included because of the need Iv provide for major improvements on Perkins Street and the need to achieve boundaries that are reasonable in terms of proper project plan- ning. Inclusion of the Oak Manor subdivision is Justified because this relatively well maintained subdlvislon is showlng some signs of poor maintenance along its northerly edges and it was felt that it could benefit from conservation oriented redevelopment actions, accessibility improvements, and possible improvements to the only school in the redevelopment project area. CONFORMITY WITH THE "PREDOMINANTLY URBANIZED REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW The 1985 redevelopment feasibility study of Shaw and Associates, which used substantially the same boundaries as the current project, estimated the total project area to be app~'oximately 1,450 acres and concluded that "Vacant land within the boundaries of the area will not exceed the 20% limit as the map ts drawn. Our calculations suggest approximately 18% of the land area within the boundaries is vacant." d In 1989 the City of Ukiah reexamined the amount of privately held land in the redevelopment project area to estimate the amount of unurbanized land. The resulting estimate placed the amount of unurbanized private land at about 12 percent (for further details, reference should be made to the Analysis of the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee, presented as section XVI of the Report on the Redevelopment Plan). I hope that the above analysis will clear up the errors and mis- conceptions contained in the memoraadum from the Redwood Legal Assistance. Sincerely, John B, Dykstra President Page 6 ***END*** AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF UKIAH AND THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33401 THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this ~ day of ,1989, by and among the UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (the "Agency"), the CITY OF UKIAH (the "City") and the COUNTY OF MENDOCINO (the "County"). Recital~ A. The City Council of the City adopted and approved a Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Ukiah Redevelopment Project (the "Project") by Ordinance No. 895 on November 15, 1989. B. Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Agency is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the Project. C. The County is a taxing agency with territory located within the boundaries of the Project (the "Project Area"). D. Pursuant to Article XVI, Section 16, of the California Constitution, Section 33670 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code and the Redevelopment Plan, increases in the assessed values of the property within the Project Area above the sum of the assessed values as shown on the 1989-90 assessment roll (the "Base Year Roll") will result in that portion of property taxes levied each year on such increases in assessed values being paid to the Agency as tax increments (the "Total Tax Increments") to pay the principal of and interest on loans, monies advanced to or indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, redevelopment in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. E. Section 33401 of the Health and Safety Code allows a redevelopment agency to make any payments necessary to alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to any affected taxing agency by a redevelopment project. F. The Agency has determined that because of the loss in property taxes the County could incur due to the Project, certain actions as set forth below are UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 12/19/89 necessary to alleviate the burden and detriment or potential burden and detriment to the County. G. The Agency and County desire to enter into this Agreement to authorize the payment by the Agency to the County of a portion of the Agency's Tax Increments as set forth below which the Agency has determined would be necessary to alleviate the financial burden or detriment or potential burden or detriment to the County. H. The County proposes to develop and construct a County Administration Complex within the Downtown Portion of the Project Area. It is the policy of the Agency and the City to encourage and assist the County in the development of the County Administration Complex in the Downtown Portion of the Project Area because the revitalization of the Project Area depends upon the retention of and expansion of office facilities and employment opportunities within the Project Area. Therefore, the Agency and the City wish to assist the County in the development of the County Administration Complex by providing land, parking, landscaping and the interim use of existing City facilities in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Agreements THE AGENCY, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. As used herein: a. "Agency Tax Increments" means taxes allocated to and received by the Agency from the Project Area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670(b) of the Community Redevelopment Law and Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, less amounts to be paid by the Agency to the County pursuant to Section 2.e. of this Agreement. b. "Community Redevelopment Law" means the California Community Redevelopment Law as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 2 12/19/89 c. "County's Share" means the proportionate percentage share of Tax Increments in a Fiscal Year that the County General Fund would have received as property taxes from the Project Area if there were no provision in the Redevelopment Plan for the allocation of Tax Increments to the Agency. d. "County Administration Complex" means the principal administrative offices of the County of Mendocino which shall include office space of at least 55,000 square feet. e. "Downtown Portion of the Project Area" means the land area within the Project Area bounded by Oak Street, Mill Street and Mill Street Extension, the railroad tracks and Norton Street and Norton Street Extension. f. "Final EIR" means the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the Ukiah Redevelopment Project and the comments and responses thereto. g. "Fiscal Year" means the fiscal year first commencing July 1,1990, and each Fiscal Year commencing July 1 thereafter in which Tax Increments are allocated to the Agency pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law and the Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this Agreement, the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1990, constitutes "Fiscal Year 1" and each succeeding Fiscal Year is consecutively numbered thereafter, with the final Fiscal Year ("Fiscal Year 40") constituting the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2029. h. "Mervyn's Parcel" means Assessor's Parcel No. within the Project Area upon which Dayton Hudson Company, Inc., or its affiliate, proposes to construct a Mervyn's Department store or similar general retail facility. i. "Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 895 adopted by the City Council on November 15,1989, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan. j. "Project" means the Ukiah Redevelopment Project. k. "Project Area" means the land area within the boundaries of the Ukiah Redevelopment Project as shown and described in the Redevelopment Plan. 1. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Ukiah Redevelopment Project. UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 3 12 / 1 9 / 8 9 Section 2. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Sections 3 and 4 of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to pass through to the County the following amounts: a. From Fiscal Year 11 through 20 of the Project, forty percent (40%) of the amount of the County's Share of the Agency Tax Increments which are payable to the Agency during each year of the Project, provided that if the Mervyn's Parcel is developed as described in subsection d. below, the Agency shall pass through to the County the amount described in subsection d. for the Mervyn's Parcel. b. From Fiscal Year 21 through 30 of the Project, sixty percent (60%) of the amount of the County's Share of the Agency Tax Increments which are payable to the Agency during each year of the Project. c. From Fiscal Year 31 through 40 of the Project, one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the County's Share of the Agency Tax Increments which are payable to the Agency during each year of the Project. d. From Fiscal Year 1 through 20 of the Project, sixty percent (60%) of the amount of the County's Share of the Agency Tax Increments which are generated by development of the Mervyn's Parcel by Dayton Hudson Company, Inc., of a Mervyn's department store or similar general retail facility for which construction commences by Dayton Hudson Company, Inc., or its affiliate, within three (3) years of the date of execution of this Agreement, unless the Agency, pursuant to a development agreement with Dayton Hudson Company, Inc., agrees to give financial assistance which exceeds one-half of the tax increment generated from the Mervyn's Parcel, in which case the provisions of this subsection d. shall have no effect. e. The Agency also agrees to pass through to the County the following amounts: (1) From Fiscal Year 1 through 40, one hundred percent (100%) of the monies received by the Agency that are attributable to increases in the rate of tax imposed for the benefit of the County, which levy occurs after the tax year in which the Ordinance becomes effective; and UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 4 12/19/89 (2) From Fiscal Year 7 through 40, one hundred percent (100%) of the monies received by the Agency that are attributable to increases in the assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area above the sum of the Base Year Roll which are, or otherwise would be calculated and paid annually to the County pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 110.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. By the provisions of this subsection e., it is the intention of the parties that the County be paid by the Agency amounts that the County would have received during Fiscal Year I through 40 for the payments under subparagraph (1) of this subsection e. and during Fiscal Year 7 through 40 for the payments under subparagraph (2) of this subsection e., had the County made the election permitted by Health and Safety Code Section 33676. Section 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to pass through to the County one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the County's Share of the Total Tax Increments which are payable to the Agency following receipt by the Agency of Total Tax Increments derived from the County's Share (exclusive of amounts passed through to the County pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 above) in the cumulative amount of TWENTY MILLION SIX ~DRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,600,000), unless this amount is reduced according to the provisions in the third paragraph of Section 7. Section 4. In no event shall payments be made to the County by the Agency: a. Which would exceed the amount, annually, that the County would have otherwise received from property taxes from the Project Area had the Project not been adopted; or b. For purposes other than those specified in Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment Law or in violation of any other provision of the Community Redevelopment Law or the laws of the State of California. Section 5. For administrative convenience, the Agency and the County hereby request and direct the County Auditor-Controller to pay directly to the County the pass-through payments to which it is entitled under Sections 2 and 3 of UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 5 12/19/89 this Agreement. Such arrangement is for administrative convenience only and shall in no way be construed to affect the character of the payments made to the County under this Agreement as payments made pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401. The County Auditor-Controller is hereby directed to send to the Agency each year a report which includes the supporting information and calculations used to determine the amounts paid to the County pursuant to this Agreement. Section 6. Pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency must set aside twenty percent (20%) of its Total Tax Increments for low- and moderate-income housing (the "Housing Funds"). Each year the Agency receives its Total Tax Increments and until such time as the Total Tax Increments the Agency receives from the County's Share equals $20,600,000 as set forth in Section 3, the Agency agrees to set aside and make available to the County, at the County's election to be made annually, twenty-five percent (25%) of its Housing Funds for low- and moderate-income housing programs within the City of Ukiah which in the Agency's reasonable determination comply with the requirements of Section 33334.2 and all other provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 7. County Administration Complex. In order to assist the County with the development of the County Administration Complex, the Agency agrees to perform the obligations contained in this Section 7. However, the County and the Agency agree that in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7, certain of these Agency obligations are conditioned upon the County adopting a basic concept plan and additional obligations are conditioned upon the financing and construction of the County Administration Complex. Within one (1) month after approval of this Agreement by the Agency, the Agency and the County shall jointly retain an M.A.I. appraiser to determine the fair market value of property which is within the Downtown Portion of the Project Area, the identity of which has been agreed to by the Agency and the County and which does not exceed 90,000 square feet. The appraiser shall be agreed upon by the Agency and the County and the costs of the appraisal(s) shall be shared equally. Upon the receipt of the appraisal(s), the total value of the UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 6 12 / 19 / 8 9 property appraised shall be determined and shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Reimbursement Amount." Within eighteen (18) months after approval of this Agreement by the Agency, the County Board of Supervisors shall adopt a basic concept plan for the County Administration Complex, which shall include the location of the County Administration Complex, architectural concept plans of the structure(s), the location of parking and circulation, and a feasible financing plan. If the County does not adopt a basic concept plan within this time period or if in the adopted basic concept plan the County Administration Complex is not located within the Downtown Portion of the Project Area, the Agency shall have no further responsibilities pursuant to the provisions of this Section 7; however, the amount in Section 3 shall be reduced to $17,800,000. If the adopted basic concept plan is adopted within eighteen (18) months and the County Administration Complex is located within the Downtown Portion of the Project Area, the Agency and the County shall enter into one or more separate agreements based upon the following terms: a. If the site for the County Administration Complex shown in the basic concept plan includes Parcels 002-192-14, 002-192-02, 002-192-03 and 002-19211 (the "Old Police Station"), in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to sell the Old Police Station to the County for a purchase price of One Dollar ($1.00). The Old Police Station shall not be acquired by the Agency to_implement this Agreement until the Agency, pursuant to this Section 7, either acquires the Acquisition Property or reimburses the County, whichever occurs first. b. If the site for the County Administration Complex shown in the basic concept plan includes portions of Smith and Standley Streets between Main and Mason Streets, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to cause the City to vacate those portions of the two streets and transfer those portions to the County. c. In addition to the Agency's obligations under subsections a. and b. above, the Agency shall assist in the acquisition of up to 90,000 square feet of land designated by the County in the approved basic concept plan (the UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 7 12/19/89 "Acquisition Property") in the manner set forth in subsection d. below. Hereinafter, the Old Police Station, the portions of Smith and Standley Streets described in subsection b. above and the Acquisition Property to be transferred pursuant to this subsection c. and subsection d., shall be collectively referred to as the "Sales Property". d. (1) If the basic concept plan is adopted and the financing plan approved by the County within twelve (12) months from the approval of this Agreement by the Agency, the Agency shall use its best efforts to acquire the Acquisition Property and cause relocation of all occupants and upon such acquisition and relocation, the Agency shall sell the Acquisition Property to the County for a purchase price of One Dollar ($1.00). In the event the Agency is unable to acquire the Acquisition Property, both parties agree to meet and use best faith efforts to determine alternative ways of providing the County with the Acquisition Property, or its equivalent. (2) If the basic concept plan is adopted and the financing plan approved by the County after twelve (12) months but within eighteen (18) months from the approval of this Agreement by the Agency, the Agency shall determine, within forty-five (45) days after approval of the basic concept plan by the County, whether to use its best efforts to acquire the Acquisition Property or whether to reimburse the County. (a) If the Agency determines to use its best efforts to acquire the Acquisition Property, the Agency shall sell the Acquisition Property to the County for a purchase price which is equal to the difference between the amount for which the Agency acquired the property and the Reimbursement Amount; (b) If the Agency determines to reimburse the County, the Agency shall reimburse the County the Reimbursement Amount. e. If the Agency is required to use its best efforts to acquire the Acquisition Property, pursuant to Section d.(1), or determines to use its best efforts to acquire the Acquisition Property, pursuant to Section d.(2)(a), the Agency shall commence acquisition of the land within thirty (30) days after the Agency has approved evidence submitted by the County that the County has obtained UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 8 12 / 19 / 8 9 financing for the construction of the County Administration Complex or has a feasible financing plan and shall use its best efforts to transfer the property free of occupants within eighteen (18) months from commencement of acquisition. f. The Agency shall transfer the Sales Property to the County only after: (1) final construction drawings for the County Administration Complex have been approved; (2) the County has obtained final construction and long term financing for the construction of the County Administration Complex; and (3) the County has entered into a construction contract. g. The Sales Property transferred will be cleared of all structures above the surface and will be rough graded; however, the Agency will not be responsible for the clearing, removal of utilities or any subsurface objects and the County shall be liable for the costs of any toxic waste removals. h. All Sales Property transferred to the County shall only be used for the construction of a County Administration Complex and the documents transferring the Sales Property shall contain provisions requiring that the Sales Property shall revert to the Agency, if not used for these purposes within certain specified periods of time. i. The County shall provide the number of parking spaces required by City Code for the construction and operation of the County Administration Complex. The Agency agrees to cause the City to lease for one dollar ($1.00) per year or otherwise make available to the County a number of parking spaces, but not to exceed 50, for the public use of the County Administration Complex and the Courthouse. The Agency shall determine the location of the parking spaces after consultation with the County; however, the location shall be reasonably convenient to the County Administration Complex or the Court House. The County shall maintain the parking spaces, provide adequate insurance, and agree to hold the Agency and the City harmless from any and all claims brought against the Agency or the City with regard to the County's use of the parking spaces. The City shall be required to make the parking spaces available upon the completion of construction of the County Administration Complex. UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 9 12 / 19 / 8 9 j. The Agency will provide or cause to be provided landscaping adjacent to the County Administration Complex and in the public rights of way adjoining the County Administration Complex. The landscaping to be provided by the Agency shall implement a landscaping plan approved by both the Agency and the County. The landscaping shall be of high quality, but shall not be more expensive than landscaping normally found around new public buildings in the City. The County shall be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. The Agency shall be required to provide the landscaping according to a construction schedule agreed upon by the Agency and the County and which is based upon the construction of the County Administration Complex. Section 8. The City shall designate nine (9) parking spaces on the east side of School Street adjacent to the existing County Courthouse for the exclusive use by the County. The City shall make these spaces available to the County upon the completion of any required administrative or legal actions. The County shall provide adequate insurance and agree to hold the Agency and the City harmless from any and all claims brought against the Agency or the City with regard to the County's use of these nine (9) parking spaces. Section 9. Upon the request of the County, the City shall lease to the County, on an annual basis for a payment of One Dollar ($1.00) a year, the Old Police Station for use by the County as office space for county employees. At the option of the County, the City shall lease the Old Police Station to the County within thirty (30) days after the request by the County, and until the Old Police Station is transferred to the County pursuant to Section 7. a., or if the Old Police Station is not to be transferred to the County, until the completion of the construction of the County Administration Complex, but in no event shall the City's obligation to lease exceed five years from the effective date of this Agreement. The lease shall require the County to maintain the Old Police Station, provide adequate insurance and hold the City and the Agency harmless from any and all claims arising from the County's use and occupancy of the Old Police Station. Section 10. The Agency, the City and the County agree to discuss and consider modifications of this Agreement in order to accomplish the mutual UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 1 0 12/19/89 objective of development and construction of the County Administration Complex within the Downtown Portion of the Project Area. Section 11. The County agrees to authorize the Agency to subordinate its interest herein and to allow the Agency to pledge all or any portion of the Tax Increments otherwise payable to the County under this Agreement in order to secure the repayment of Agency indebtedness incurred for the Project (other than Agency indebtedness to the City or other entities controlled by the City); provided the Agency demonstrates, to the reasonable satisfaction of the County, its ability to make payments due to the County under the terms of this Agreement and to meet its obligations under Section 7 of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall give the County the right to approve Agency indebtedness, except as the Agency may request the County to subordinate its rights to payments under this Agreement. Section 12. This Agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of the Agency incurred in carrying out the Project and a pledging of Tax Increments from the Project to repay such indebtedness under the provisions of Article XVI, Section 16, of the California-Constitution and Sections 33670-33677 of the HeaIth and Safety Code. Section 13. It is the intent of the Agency to take all reasonable actions, including the adoption of its budget, to assure that the Total Tax Increments received by the Agency will be available to implement the obligations of the Agency pursuant to Section 7, after first deducting amounts required to be set aside for low- and moderate-income housing and amounts to be paid to other taxing entities. Section 14. This Agreement is conditioned upon the County rescinding its resolution to elect to receive the increases pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33676(a). This Agreement shall be effective as of the date that the Agency executes this Agreement or the County rescinds its resolution to receive the increases pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33676(a), whichever occurs later; however, if the County has not rescinded its resolution to receive the increases pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33676(a) prior to January 31, 1990, this Agreement shall be void and shall not take effect. UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 1 1 12/19/89 Section 15. The Agency and the County agree not to file and the County agrees not to engage in any litigation to directly or indirectly test or challenge the validity of the Project, the Redevelopment Plan, the Final EIR, the Ordinance or this Agreement; however, this Section shall not preclude the Agency from initiating a bond validation suit if it is deemed necessary by the Agency to assure adequate financing for the Project. Section 16. In the event litigation is initiated by any party attacking the validity of the Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Final EIR or the Ordinance, the effect of this Agreement shall be suspended and the Agency shall not have any obligations under this Agreement until a judgment becomes final upholding the validity of the Redevelopment Plan, the Project, the Final EIR or the Ordinance. Section 17. The obligations of the Agency to make payments to the County pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of this Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier of the expiration or termination of the Redevelopment Plan or of the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan authorizing the allocation to the Agency of tax increments for the Project, and upon such termination, all obligations of the Agency to make payments to the County shall cease. Section 18. The City shall have no obligations under this Agreement, except for those obligations set forth in Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this Agreement. The obligations of the City pursuant to the provisions of Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall terminate upon cessation of occupancy by the County of the County Administration Complex. UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 1 2 12 / 19 / 8 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Agency, the City and the County have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By Chairman By Secretary "AGENCY" CITY OF UKIAH By COUNTY OF MENDOCINO By. "COUNTY" UKI/CoTIAgmt/CDC 13 12/19/89