HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-07 Packet CITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 Seminary Avenue
July 7, 1993
6:30 P.M.
1. Roll Call
2. Invocation
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Special Order of Business
a. Oral Presentation by White Wolf James Regarding
Mendocino Multi-Cultural Development Program
5. Approval/Correction of Minutes,
a. Special Meeting of June 10, 1993
b. Regular Meeting of June 16, 1993
6. RIGHT ~'O APPEAL DECISION
Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of
the City Council may have the right to a review of
that decision by a court. The City has adopted
Sectior. 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure which generally limits to ninety (90)
days the time within which the decision of the
City 3oards and Agencies may be judicially
challer.ged.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
The fo~Llowing items listed are considered routine
and willl be enacted by a single motion and roll
call vote by the City Council. Items may be
remove~, from the Consent Calendar upon request by
a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the
item will be considered at the completion of all
other ~,tems on the agenda. The motion by the City
Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and
make findings in accordance with Administrative
Staff ~.nd/or Planning Commission recommendations.
a. Cla~.m for Damages, Deny and Refer to Insurance
Carrier
i. Duane Mahan Insurance Company
ii. Mairlyn Bell
b. Rejection of Bids for Asphalt Concrete Overlay
of Path System at Ukiah Municipal Golf
Course Spec. No. 93-09
c. Accept Letter of Resignation Received from
Airport Commissioner John Johnson
d. Adoption of Resolution Approving City Attorney
1992.-94 Contract
e. Status Report Regarding City Surplus Item Sale
f. Cancellation of Regular Council Meeting of
July 21, 1993
g. Confirm Jim Mastin to Continue as City
Representative on MTA Board of Directors
h. Approval of Dispatch Agreement Renewal with
City of Ft. Bragg for Contracted 9-1-1
Emergency Dispatch Services
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The C~ty Council welcomes input from the audience.
In order for everyone to be heard, please limit
your comments to three (3) minutes per person and
not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The
Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be
taken on audience comments.
9. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m.
a. Appeal of Planning Commission Revocation of Use
Permit Application No. 90-20, as Filed by
S. i~auer, for a Single Family Dwelling Located
at 528 S. School St., zoned C-i, Light
Commercial District.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Nomination and Appointment of Commissioners
i. Airport Commission - Three Vacancies
Applicants Robert Wattenburger, Dorleen
McBride, Mark Davis, Vince Angell,
Jimmy Rickel
ii. Parks and Recreation Commission - Three
Vacancies Applicants Allan Johnson, Bill
Clarke
iii~. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Airport
Commissioners and Parks and Recreation
Commissioners
iv. Set Date and Time for Planning Commission
Applicant Interviews for One Vacancy
11. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consideration of Citizen Planning Process
RevJ. ew Committee Recommendations Regarding
ModJ. fications to the Development Process
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
13. CITY M3~NAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
14. CLOSED SESSION (Golf Course Negotiations)
15. ADJOURnmENT
(To July 20, 1993, 8:00 a.m., in Civic Center
Council Chambers, for Solid Waste Workshop)
NANCY McHONE
Program Director
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
MENDOCINO MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
400 E. Commercial Street
Willits, CA 95490
(707) 459-7897
TO: Ukiah City Coundl, and
Charles Rough, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Keith White Wolf James, Chairperson
Mendocino Multicultural Development Coundl
SUBJECT: Municipal Funding/Financial Support
July 6,1993
Dear Councilmembers and Mr. Rough,
The Mendocino Multicul txtral Development Program (MMDP) is a State Local Partner-
ship Program primarily funded by the California Arts Council (CAC). MMDP is the only
countywide organization that el~courages residents to identify cultural resources and needs,
and then create the linkages and .Foss-cultural communication that increase opportunities and
promote broad public participation in the cultural life of Mendocino County and all of its
diverse communities.
We are a young organizati on, therefore, our developing programs are in response to our
first year's Planning Process, wl~ich created a survey of individual artists, organizations, and
a public meeting process. MMDP's mission is to sustain open, decentralized communication
among the underserved and diverse cultures of the county, which is vital to encouraging the
broadest possible public participation in local cultural life. Besides developing cultural life in
the county, we support what is ~dready going on.
To serve our mission MMDP has provided technical assistance (grant writing, fund-
raising consultations, communit.y planning); financial support (through our Multicultural
Development Fund); and acted as an information resource by sharing our database, grant
information, and opportunities for workshops and exhibits.
By stretching CAC dollar..; MMDP has created arts opportunities for approximately
3000 participants and audience. Currently we are working with the Vintners Association and
the Farm Bureau to link up a sister event to their successful Mendocino agricultural trade show.
"Mendocino Masters" will join wi th "Mendocino Bounty" as a trade show and audience event
celebrating the county's artisans and cottage industry craftspeople. We are also working with
the county Chambers of Commerc. e on central calendar planning and ways to link the arts with
proper tourism. Most importantly, we are part of the effort to establish a Mendocino
Community Foundation for the itrts and social service groups of the county who are each
constantly dealing with the issue of sustainability. It has also been my pleasure to serve on the
City of Ukiah Cultural Arts Advisory Board. This has allowed both organizations to work
together on common goals and ke~ep abreast of important cultural developments both locally
and countywide.
As stated in our Program Goals MMDP is committed to encouraging greater levels of
support for the arts and other cultural activities, and for cultural professions in Mendocino
County. One of the ways to gairt this support is to encourage local government provision
toward these same ends. This support has been a combination of finandal and moral support
by local municipalities throughoul: the county. Our re-granting program has in large part been
successful not by CAC dollars alone, but by matching funds with local support. With your
generous support of $1,000 we c~:n continue to fulfill our goals and send a message to our
constituency that local government and MMDP are working together in promoting the wide
range of cultural diversity existing within our county.
In closing I would like to ff~ank you for your time and consideration given in support
of MMDP. We also look forward to your continuing finandal support in the future, depending
on budget constraints. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to
contact our office at 459-7897, or at my home telephone, 468-1305.
Respectfully Submitted,
Keith White Wolf Jarfle~,, Chairperson
Mendocino Multicultural Development Council
Charles Rough
City Manager
City of Ukiah
Ukiah,galif. 95482
Barnette Subdivision
Ukiah, California
Dear Mr. Rough:
As residents of the City of Ukiah the services provided by
the.City that are of primary importance to us are security and
fire protection. Though our fire department appears to be one of
the best they will be unable to deal with the inevitability of a
summer fire storm under current conditions.
We in the Barnette Subdivision are particularly vulnerable to
a wildfire for the following reasons:
1. Our water supply is furnished by a 25,000 gallon 32 year old
wooden wine tank that leaks, has inadequate flamable clearance
· around it, and is fire vulnerable.
2. This water source is recharged by a 10 h.p. pump which,
according to Ted Goforth of your public works department, is in-
adequate. In the event of a major fire the fire hydrant use
plus owner water use would drain the tank in_ a'~matter of_.minutes
while the small pump would be unable to overcome use.
3. A fire trail system established some thirty years or more in
thepast has been abandoned though the Ukiah fire department is
currently working with the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection or~ a vegetative management program.
4. The Barnette Subdivision was annexed in1956 ( See ordinance
#510 Bk. 450 Pg. 97 oi the Mendocino County Records ). At that
time there was a modezate amount of wildland fuel load on the
hillside around and akove the subdivision. The hillside had not
burned for some ten years so the brush and trees were just getting
started. Since that time the cover has grown to the point that
there is an extreme fuel load on this area. In the event of a not
unusual period of low humidity and high winds a situation would be
created that could surpass the fire storm devastation that
occured in similiar areas in Oakland, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica
and elsewhere in California.
5. The C.D.F.& F.P. has tenatively scheduled the phasing out of
of the local aerial tanker base and fleet. We will no longer be
within the initial attack zone for aerial tanker response. Only
larger tankers out of Santa Rosa or places farther removed will
be available. 97% of fires handled by the State are controlled
in the initial attack. ThTi~D· situation will add 20 minutes or
more to an initial attack time for the tankers.
The results of a firestorm situation could very well be prop-
erty loss in the millions of dollars, esthetic degradation last-
ing for decades, almos~z guaranteed extensive hillside erosion and
exposure to wildfire to everything west of State St. The City of
Ukiah could also have considerable liability exposure.
We feel it is imperative that the City of Ukiah assign a
high priority to reducing the danger from fire to this part of the
city. The following steps should be taken:
1. Replace the water tank serving this part of Ukiah with a tank
of adequate capacity and construction and provide for an adequate
fuel break around the tank.
2. Replace the inadequate pump on Mendocino Place so that the
water tank can be recharged at a rate that will allow for full use
of all fire hydrants and domestic sprinkler and hose systems.
3. Make acceleration of the fuel management program with the State
a high priority program so that fire trails are reestablished,
that fuel breaks .. at various levels of the hillside be est-
ablished for backfire purposes, and that the whole program of co-
operation in initial attack, fuel management, and interagency co-
operation be reviewed by your office and the City Council for
· adequacy and efficiency.
4. Make it a high priority to see what can be done to maintain
an aerial tanker presence at or near Ukiah so that we continue to
be covered by an initial attack tanker capability.
We trust that the City of Ukiah will seriousy consider our
concerns and take prompt action to minimize t~e risk With which'we are
faced ..... i__.
Sincerely
NAME
I /
ADDRESS
,2.7. q-- /.
DATE
c.c Ukiah City Counci'
'7T".-.' T' -. ..... ·
.-, ...... .. , . ..
~ill q .7 ,:'~i i'~ i~ i;... ' -
:-'.'7'7!" ~ ..... . ..
-. , . ~ ~2': '.._
r7 -: .~, ~ :, .
"~-: '-;'- 77~-'.'.'Z - - .
_~.~.
_ .
:.7 L':; ~ . S i'~?;'']I.. - ~'
': "7: ':
;' -' '- :" -F ,.-' '
~- ii'~:':~ ~i-~-h', c'. .....
.-.*'C","~ ~..
· ~
.
-:-,,i'. ' '7~'ii:-'i' --
':-.~ 8 Z : '.'.i !;i~'i'i !_. -.--
....
" ' ~ i~']'. -'7
...
. , : ...:-
...
.. _
......
· .
... : ..-, _..._
.
· _
~ ...... :_.
., .
.
-
.... ':' -'" '-" - .~, '.'~i ~'' Z ....... 7 - .-' '~ - ~ -- ~ -
~
. .
..-i '-'~" ~ ";i" ...... ~". '='~ - 77!:': '_:~ ,'-~ ...... :~.
- .
· . ~ . _ . .~ ..- . .;, ...
:_.-R:.L:~.. L'.~._ --{..
. . .
. ..' .-~ . -z-7.,-Z .--.
.' '~:' ' z ~" -~"-.;!q .7
. ' ' Z: ; "- ._... _ _ "~- _
.
.
. . . . _'. _ '
_
__
. ;-.- . -
.
. ._
.._
- ;";"~..q ',:.2"x' -- ~-t -.-'c .-..-~ .......
....
....: ~.- ~ -, .... ; :-..-.. . . -. -._..~ -.. -
........
: x, ;. -...- .';.."/..; - '- :; 7- A :". · ~ ;-' ~' ~.; C
'; '.:' ;. ,;- -- T ......
_, ...
:':-'~.C,- ',~'.~ - ' - :-~- -
.......... ,,~ ~- . _. -..,:;.?.;.;-: -
...~-"-':.',.,,:.z,?,(,7,~. ~5-~:~ -. ,: .........
~.:.. ;,,:'~ ..:-:,:?,:, ~ ~: :: , ._ ~ ...........
'- ""2: -Z.'..~ _
- ~ :.~. -~ -.." .',.--.z'-- ,_ ~r' qq¢ ---.
--..:. ~] ~ R .::'~'~"..~ .:: ='~ -- , ..... ...:.:,- .... .....;
. -
.". . .
...
_
....
-
.
. _
· -''T
' -.i 2-*-- - : ' L -
. . _
' ;": ~'- '-: ' "' ' '" .... - :::- .:Z
....... .__ .
L
CITY OF UKIAH
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
and
UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES
Special Joint Meeting
TODD GROVE ROOM
Ukiah Community Clubhouse
599 Park Boulevard
June 10, 1993
1:00 p.m.
the City Council and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board
~f Directors convened in a special joint meeting, of which
iDoth agendas were legally noticed and posted, at 1:08 p.m.,
in the Todd Grove Room of the Ukiah Community Center
Located at 599 Park Boulevard, Ukiah. Roll was taken and
the following City Councilmembers were present: Malone,
~hoemaker, and Mayor Schneiter. Absent: Councilmembers
]~astin and Wattenburger. The following District
i~oardmembers were present: Sugawara, de Vall, and
Chairman Schneiter. Absent: None. Staff present: City
]~anager Rough, City Attorney Rapport, City Clerk McKay,
?ublic Works Director Goforth, City Engineer Beard, and
?lant Supervisor Noyd.
The Public Works Director reported this proposed draft
Wastewater treatment Plant Upgrade Facilities Plan
]~repared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, has been formatted
in accordance with the guidelines of the State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Clean Water Programs so
"~hat financing may be secured from the State Revolving Fund
Loan Program. He explained the planning and engineering of
~his project should proceed as rapidly as possible as the
ilLoans from the State Revolving Fund are made on a first
come, first serve basis, therefore action is needed at this
time from each respective agencies.
~?he Public Works Director introduced Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants staff; Joel Faller, Project Manager and Bob
Rider, Project Engineer. Also attending was Leonard Charles,
Environmental Consultant.
~?he review of the proposed project proceeded regarding
requirements, treatment and planning considerations, and
projected population growth.
Boardmember de Vall stated for the record that there are
nany septage receiving stations closing in his District and
~iot is possible that this facility could become the only
facility in the County available for receipt of septic tank
%,aste and it is crucial to plan now for additional loading
that may impact this facility.
~'he presentation continued and discussion ensued regarding
flow rates, pond capacities, sludge composition and
¢i~antities, analysis of existing wastewater treatment
facilities, and reviewed schematics of alternatives for
advanced wastewater treatment.
Recess - 2:41 p.m. Reconvened - 2:51 p.m.
~eview continued of Kennedy/Jenks methodology for ranking
project alternatives, infiltration, inflow, and
¢i~ost-effectiveness of system repairs, projected minimum rate
~ncreases, additional reserve funds, and notice to the
~iublic of possible higher monthly rates than proposed in the
~raft revenue plan.
ACTIONS BY UKIAH CITY COUNCIL
~/S Shoemaker/Malone for conceptual approval of total
~'ecommended projects for Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Facility Upgrades, Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 as referenced on
?age 1.8 and 1.9, Table 1.1. The motion was carried by the
following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Malone,
:~hoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent:
,~ouncilmembers Mastin and Wattenburger.
]~/S Malone/Shoemaker to approve the draft revenue plan
modified to include the figures of $170,000 and $130,000 in
exhibit. The motion was carried by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Councilmembers Malone and Shoemaker. NOES:
]~ayor Schneiter. Absent: Councilmembers Mastin and
~attenburger
Sanitation District Boardmember Sugawara suggested the
.~lternative of adding of the following wording: these rate
increases do not reflect some additional capital
expenditures anticipated by the Sanitation District for
Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, and is likely to result in additional
fees, to be determined at the time of the adoption of final
budget.
Councilmember Shoemaker concurred and suggested further
additional wording of "and this proposed fee schedule is for
the use of the State of California in the finance situation."
~otion by Councilmember Shoemaker to reconsider the
])revious motion after further discussion. Councilmember
~alone, the maker of the motion, agreed and seconded the
motion. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote of
all AYE.
~S Shoemaker/Malone to approve draft revenue plan and at
the bottom of the plan there will be a statement drafted by
staff to inform the public that "these figures to be used by
the State for a financing program, and the prudent operation
of this agency is going to require that those reserve
amounts and/or higher fees will probably result as needing
higher reserve amounts."
Councilmember Shoemaker and Boardmember Suguawara
noted that the exact wording is not required and indicated
that staff could develop appropriate wording to match the
~i.ntent.
Boardmember de Vall stated that he prefers that the word
"probably" be removed from the motion.
Councilmember Shoemaker agreed to Boardmember de Vall's
%;ording replacement request.
~i?he motion on the floor was carried by the following roll
call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Malone, Shoemaker and
Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None.
~S Shoemaker/Malone acting as the designated lead agency,
directed staff to prepare and file Draft Negative
Declaration for a 30 day review period; set the date for
required Public Hearing on Draft Negative Declaration for
August 4, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Ukiah Civic Center; authorized staff to transmit the
Facilities Plan to the State Water Resources Control Board
for review and approval; and authorized Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants to proceed with Preliminary Design of the
recommended project.
ACTIONS BY UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
~I/S Sugawara/de Vall conceptually approved the recommended
project as approved by the Ukiah City Council; approved
the Draft Revenue Plan; concurred with City Council action
regarding preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration;
~uthorized staff to transmit the Facilities Plan to State
Vater Resources Control Board for review and approval; and
~uthorized Kennedy/Jenks Consultants to proceed with
Special Joint Meeting
June 10, 1993
Page 2
Preliminary Design of the recommended project. The motion
was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Boardmembers de Vall, Sugawara and Chairman Schneiter.
It was the general consensus of the Board for staff to
forward the Draft Negative Declaration for their review
prior to July 21, 1993.
Boardmember de Vall requested the use of the words
"illustrative figures" to be used in the previously approved
additional paragraph to the chart (yellow) entitled "City of
Ukiah Wastewater Revenue Plan Comparison of Sewer Service
Charges and Connection Fees" of the Draft Revenue Plan.
there was no objection to this request, by the Ukiah City
Council or the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Board.
~DJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
~rhere being being no further City of Ukiah business, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.
:~DJOURNMENT OF SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
There being no further Sanitation District business, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m. to the Joint meeting with
'~he City Council for a Budget Hearing on June 23, 1993, 1:00
]).m., in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center.
CCMIN.133
Cathy McKay CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Special Joint Meeting
June 10, 1993
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF UKIAH '~.. June 16. 1993
The City Council convened in a regular meeting, of which the
agenda was leg~ally noticed and posted, at 6:31 p.m., in the
Council Chambei~s of the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue.
Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were
present: Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger. Absent:
Councilmember Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. Staff
present: City Clerk McKay, City Manager Rough, City Attorney
Rapport, Electric Utility Director Barnes, Principal
Planner Sawfer, Redevelopment/Economic Development
Coordinator D~Knoblough, Community Development Director
Harris, Actinq Executive Assistant Yoast and Police
Captain Budrow.' '
INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCR
Acting Mayor Wattenburger delivered the Invocation and
Councilmember Mastin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
~. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION
Acting Mayor ~'attenburger reviewed Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedures regarding the appeal
process.
.CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S Malone/Mastin to approve the Consent Calendar as
follows;
6a. Denied th~ claims for damages received from Vichy
Springs Resort, Dennis and Peggy Smart, and Lee Harmon; then
referred them to the City's insurance carrier, R.E.M.I.F.
6b. Awarded the bid to Ukiah Daily Journal for legal
publishing services for Fiscal Year 1993-94, in the amount
of $3.70 per column inch for the first publication and $2.35
per column inch for each additional publication.
6c. Awarded b.id to Price Striping Service for street
striping on various City of Ukiah streets, in the amount
of $21,432.35.
6d. Awarded the bid for Scraper rental to Wipf
Construction, f¢i.r furnishing a Caterpillar 627B Scraper with
operator at an hourly rate of $134.77, and furnish a Terex
TS14-B Scraper as a backup unit at an hourly rate of
$126.77, on an ~,s-needed basis from July 1, 1993 to June 30
1994. ,
6e. Approved the purchase of the Go-4 parking enforcement
vehicle from Muricipal Maintenance Equipment for $14,874.50,
contingent upon Air Resources Board motorcycle certification
and registration as a motorcycle by the State of California
Department of Motor Vehicles. '
6f. Directed the City Clerk to extend the City of Ukiah
Commission appl].cation period and forward the applications
to Council for' consideration at an appropriate future
meeting in July.
6g. Approved the register of payroll payments, dated April
25 to May 8, ii~993, #48129 to #48297, in the amount of
$131,788.87, and payroll payments dated May 9 to May 22,
1993, #48298 to #49473, in the amount of $139,421.70; and
the demand payments dated June 16, 1993, #60514 to #60672
in the amount of $1,549.222.63. '
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Acting Mayor
Wattenburger. NCES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Shoemaker
and Mayor Schnei~i.er.
~- Approval/C.Drrection of Minutes of Special Meeting o!
June 3, 1993
M/S Malone/Mastin to approve the minutes of the Special
Meeting of June 3, 1993, as submitted. The motion was
carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Acting Mayor
Wattenburger. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Shoemaker
and Mayor Schn~iter.
2. Audience Co~%ments on Non-Aqenda Items
Darryl "Mac:" MacKibbin, 4500 Lakers Drive,
representative from "Friends of the Library" reported on the
new computer and information network now available at the
Main Library, which is provided free to the public and
invited all to come and use it.
UNFINISHED BUS~I[NESS
Sa. Update Re~!rding General Plan Revision Proqram
The Principal ]~lanner and Consultant Eric Jay Toll, provided
Council with a progress report concerning the Growth
Management Steering Committee's General Plan Revision and
Update process. They indicated that the Public Hearing by
Council is sch~duled for March 4, 1994. Mr. Toll distributed
a chart outlin~.ng timelines and task accomplishments.
The Principal Planner noted there is progress in discussions
with the County, so that the County may also use this
general plan.
Acting Mayor Wattenburger thanked staff for this report.
Bb. ConsideraZion of General Plan Amendment Policy
Resolution No. ~1-51
The Principal Planner reported the Growth Management
Steering Committee has forwarded their recommendation to
Council for discussion.
Discussion ensued regarding alternative Council actions for
exceptions, criteria for accepting applications, actual
numbers of applications on file, and the processing of an
application.
The Principal ?lanner assured Council that all applicants
will be advised of the full risks of the process, should
Council decide to suspend or rescind Resolution No. 91-51.
M/S Mastin/Malone to suspend Resolution No. 91-51 until
5:00 p.m. on August 31, 1993, and if an EIR is required,
then not accept the application.
The City Attorney advised this would not be possible.
M/S Mastin/Malone to strike the following wording from
the motion on the floor; "and if an EIR is required then
not accept the a, pplication.,, '
The amended mouflon was carried by the followin~ roll call
vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone and Acting
Mayor Wattenbu~ger. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember
Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter.
NEW BUSINESS
9a. Review and Discussion Concerninq the County Overall
Economic Development Plan (OEDP)
The City Manage~i. and Council conducted a page by page review
of the County's 9verall Economic Development Plan.
Reg. Mtg.
June 16, 1993
Page 2
M/S Malone/Mastin determined that the Overall Economic
Development Plan, with some small language changes, is ready
to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their
approval.
The City Attorney advised that Council should also authorize
the City Manager to make these minor changes based on the
previous revie%~ and discussion.
Councilmember Malone, the maker of the motion on the
floor, requested the additional wording to his motion of;
"the plan is acceptable with or without some of the minor
changes discussed.,,
Councilmember Mastin, the maker of the second, agreed to
the additional wording to the motion on the floor.
The amended motion was carried by the following roll call
vote: AYES: Councilmember Mastin, Malone and Acting
Mayor Wattenbarger. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember
Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter.
CITY COUNCIL RF:~ORTS
Councilmember Mastin
Reported on the Russian River Run held June 6th.
Councilmember Malone
Noted the Jun~ 10, 1993 Solid Waste Workshop was very
informative, r.,~ported on the Sun House Guild membership
luncheon he attended, and reported the Chamber of Commerce
membership continues to increase.
Actinq Mayor Wa'~tenburqer
Reported on the June 7 Mendocino Council of Governments
meeting he attended; noted the citizens review committee
meeting he attended regarding the proposed Camping Ordinance
was successful; and commented he attended the special
display of the Aids Quilt Project held for three days at
Ukiah High School.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:55 p.m., to June 22 and 23, 1993, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 300
Seminary Avenue, for Budget Hearings.
CCMIN.134
Cathy McKay CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Reg. Mtg.
June 16, 1993
Page 3
ITEM NO. llb
DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: REQUEST BY COUNTY OE MENDOCINO FOR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO ALLOCATE TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY USING
THE ALTERNATIVE ]PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION METHOD ("TEETER
PLAN").
This item comes to the Council as an emergency item. It was received after
the posting of the agenda for this meeting, and requires action before the
next Council meeting.
By changing their accounting and tax allocation method, the County will be
able to lessen their impact from the State transfer of funds to schools.
To do this, they must adopt the "Teeter Plan," which they did adopt on
July 7, 1993; and the affeuted taxing agencies must also pass resolutions
asking to be included in tine "Teeter Plan."
The County staff report is attached for further information. To briefly
summarize:
Best Case' City receives $82,320 "bonus" payment in 93/94; future years
are unchanged.
Worst Case: City receives $82,320 "bonus" payment in 93/94; future years
are unchanged, until County reverts to old allocation method
causing return of $82,320 plus inflation.
(Continued on Page 2)
EMERGENCY ACTION: Place on agenda as New Business Item #1lb.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve resolution requesting City inclusion
in the alternative method of property tax
distribution ("Teeter Plan").
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Do not place item on agenda or adopt resolution.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.:
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: County of Mendocino, Auditor-Controller
Prepared by: Louise Burr, Finance Director
Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
· 1. Resolut~on.] ;
Attachments ~/' 7C~t~ta~ep°rt'
APPROVED' ~ ~' ' ~'V~A
4/CM/ASR.TEETER I ,
SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
The current secured tax w~!.ll be allocated based on assessments rather than
collections. The first year (93/94) will add $82,320 to City property tax
revenues. Subsequent years should remain unchanged. If the County
reverts to the standard ~ethod of allocation in the future, the one-time
bonus of $82,320 (adjusted for increases in assessed value) would be lost.
It is unlikely that the County would revert to the standard allocation
method because of the relative simplicity of the Teeter Plan.
By opting into the Teeter Plan the City could gain $82,320 (best case) or
remain unchanged (worst case). For this reason and to cooperate with the
County, Staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
4'CM/ASR.TEETER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
9.8
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLLITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
REQUESTING INCLUSION OF THE CITY IN THE ALTERNATIVE
METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION ("TEETER PLAN")
WHEREAS, state law authorizes counties to adopt an alternative procedure for the
distribution of property tax revenue, commonly known as the "Teeter Plan," pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 4701 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Mendocino Counh/Board of Supervisors adopted the "Teeter Plan"
on July 6, 1993; and
WHEREAS, state aw requires that the City authorize the application of the Teeter
Plan to tax revenue due this City; and
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed material presented by the County Auditor-
Controller and has determined that adoption of the Teeter Plan by the Counh/ of
Mendocino and application of the Teeter Plan to this City would provide one-time
property taxes of approximately $82,320, simplify the tax apportionment process, and
result In Increased stability and predictability of property tax revenue, to the benefit of
this City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that !he Mendocino County Auditor-Controller
is authorized and dire¢:ted to allocate current secured tax revenue due this City
according to the Alternative Method of Property Tax Distribution ("Teeter Plan").
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
- - _, 1993, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
4:CM'RES.TEETER
TEETER PLAN
ALTERNATE METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
(ACCRUAL METHOD)
Background:
- Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4701
- Curren%ly used by five Counties in California
- 100% of property taxes (Current Secured only) billed
allocated to agencies
General Benefits:
- Provides one tim~ increase in property tax revenues to all
taxing agencies (approximately $5 Million)
- Simplifies prope~rty tax revenue estimation and allocation
process
- Stabilizes prope~=ty tax revenues
- Generates higher tax revenue during periods of recession
- Reduces the property tax shift to state and schools
resulting from A]38 transfer (relative to delinquent taxes)
Specific Advantages to Taxing Agencies:
- One-time property tax revenue increase of approximately
$3 million for 1!)93-94- generates additional annual interest
- Current year secured tax levy paid out at 100%
- Estimating annua~l property tax revenue is more accurate
Possible Disadvantages:
Reverting back to current method (i.e. cash basis) would
have an adverse financial effect on agencies who spent
their one-time d:.stribution
Remaining Issues/Implementation Steps:
- Discuss with Cities, Schools and Special Districts - obtain
opt-in resolution by July 15 deadline
- Board approval bs' July 15, 1993
- Make all necessary modification changes by December 1993
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE I
TEETER PLAN
ALTERNATE METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX APPORTIONMENT
(ACCRUAL VS. CASH BASIS)
Background:
In 1949, The State Legislature adopted Revenue and Taxation code
section 4701 which authorized the "Alternative Method of Property
Tax Distribution". this alternative method was proposed by the
Contra Costa Auditor-Controller Desmond Teeter, and therefore,
the method is sometimes referred to as the "Teeter" plan.
As stated in Section 4701, "It is...the object of this
alternative procedure to accomplish a simplification of the tax-
levying and tax-apportioning process and an increased flexibility
in the use of available cash resources". This method has been
used by Contra Costa County for over 40 years and is currently
used in Solano, SiskJ.you, E1 Dorado and Toulomne Counties.
In simple terms, this distribution method authorizes the Auditor-
Controller to allocate to agencies
taxes billed but not yet paid (i.e.100% of the secured property
curren~ method only allows allocati accrual basis); whereas, the
on of secured property taxes
actually a~ (i.e. cash basis). Under our current method,
delinquent taxes, penalties and interest are allocated, when
collected, by a separate allocation process. Therefore, the
alternate method only requires 9ne allocation process; whereas,
the current (old) method requires-_two allocation processes.
As described later in this report, the Teeter plan method offers
Mendocino County agencies the following benefits:
- Simplifies the property tax revenue estimation and allocation
process for the agencies and the Auditor
- Stabilizes property tax revenues
- Generates higher property tax revenues during years of higher
property tax delinquencies
- Provides a one-ti~'e increase in property tax revenues to all
taxing agencies
Potential Benefits:
During years in which the delinquent taxes are rising, each
agency would receive m. Dre property taxes under the alternate
versus the current metlnod. For the past several years,
delinquent taxes have .increased and is anticipated to continue to
increase over the next three years. Ail taxing jurisdictions
would have received
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
Potential Benefits (cont.):
more property tax revenues under the Alternative method during
this time period.
However, the single largest benefit of the Alternative method is
the one-time allocatJ.on of the prior year's delinquent property
taxes. It is estima~ed that the outstanding amount of delinquent
property taxes, penalties and interest at June 30, 1993 will
approximate $5.5 million. Once a decision is made to use this
method, 95% of the above amount outstanding will be allocated to
all agencies as if t~Lis amount had actually been collected. For
the County General F~.nd, this one time increase in property tax
revenue would be approximately $2 million. As stated later in
this report, we are recommending that the $2 million be used to
finance our required reserves under this method.
In addition, as the C!elinquent taxes are collected, the Tax
Collector also will k.e receipting associated 10% penalties and
18% interest. These funds are normally deposited to a Tax Loss
Reserve Fund requireci, by the alternative method. When the total
deposits into this ft~.nd exceeds 4% of the current year secured
property tax levy amc~unt, the excess can be transferred and
credited to the Coun~iy General Fund.
Under the Alternative method, taxing agencies can accurately
estimate their annual, property tax revenues. They now know that
they will receive 10C% of the secured property taxes billed.
After the Assessor submits the tax roll to the Auditor, and the
property value changes are determined and calculated, we will
then know the total secured taxes that will be billed. Each
taxing agency, based on their allocation factor, will receive
100% of its portion cf the total levy.
Under the existing current method, estimating property tax
revenues is very complex. First, each agency must obtain the
secured property taxes billed by the Auditor. From this amount,
they then subtract their estimate of the annual delinquent taxes.
This then determines the net current year secured tax revenue.
Second, they must estimate the amount to be collected on the
delinquent accounts plus penalties and interest. Forecasting
this latter amount does not lend itself well to utilizing any
currently used scientific methodology.
Utilizing the Teeter plan method, all current year taxes are
distributed to the agencies and the need for a multiple
allocation process is no longer necessary in apportioning prior
year taxes.
Remaining Issues:
As mentioned above, during the first year of using the
Alternative method, it is necessary to advance to the taxing
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 3
Remaining Issues (cont.):
jurisdictions an amount equal to the total delinquent secured
property taxes outstanding plus accrued penalties and interest.
In addition, the County must establish a reserve equal to 4% of
the total tax levy (approximately $1.4 million). We are
proposing to use a portion of the one-time $2 million revenue to
the General Fund to finance the reserve requirement and to
utilize the Treasury pooled funds (cash from all agencies in the
Treasury) to finance the buyout. As delinquent property taxes
are later collected, we will repay the Treasury pool. The 10%
penalties and 18% interest collected on the delinquent property
taxes will be used tD pay interest to the Treasury pool for
financing the advanc.~s. Any excess penalties and interest could
be retained in a Tax Loss Reserve Fund or distributed to the
County General Fund.
Many of the California counties are looking into the feasibility
of changing to the A]i~ternative method. We are in the process of
comparing our analys~.s of the effects and cOmparing our findings
to theirs to verify that all the pertinent variables were taken
into consideration.
Steps to Implementation:
- Resolve the issues discussed above
- Communicate this change to the taxing jurisdictions within
Mendocino County
- Secure Opt-In resolutions from the taxing jurisdictions as
may be required
- Prepare a Board of Supervisor resolution, by July 15 1993,
for adoption ,
- Implement any sys'zem modifications prior to the first
property tax allocation in December 1993
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
County of Mendocino
Auditor-Controller
Teeter Plan Analysis
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL SAVINGS
ASSUMPTION: COUNTY OPTS-IN TO TEETER PLAN IN 1989-90
SCHEDULE A
Collection Year
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
Penalty/ Current Teeter Current Penalty/
Interest Method of Method of Levy Gain Interest
Collected Apportion Apportion Buyout Pmt
-6-
Estimated
Redemption
Buyout Pmt
829,202
838 416
628,758
611 285
694,161
740,102
781 935
822,068
354,069
358,004
269 108
244,514
242 956
259 036
273,677
287 724
829,202
838,416
628,758
611,285
694,161
740,102
781,g35
822,068
Estimated Redemption Buyout Cost:
Estimated ~verage
Base I~terest
645.019
782.476
794 165
798.590
730.211
763 070
797 408
833,292
198%90
19go-g1
1991-92
lgg2-g3
1993-94 Est
lgg4-g5 Est
1995-96 Est
1996-97 Est
405,588 338,543
405,588 257,284
405,588 168,720
405,588 150,224
405,588 139,465
0 148,695
0 157,099
0 165,163
Estimated
Cost
4,437 003
3,880 603
3,683 834
3,934 272
221
224
830
930
7.63% 338 543
6.63% 257 284
4.58% 168 720
3.31% 130 224
3.25% 139,465
3.25% 148 695
3.25% 157,09g
3.25% 165 163
1989-90
1990-91
1991-g2
1992-g3
1993-g4 Est 4,291
1994-95 Est 4,575
1995-96 Est 4,833
1996-97 Est 5,081
-7-
Revenue Gain
From Method
Change (Col
376,020
608,017
579,507
629,549
636,362
1,095,441
1,148,566
1,202,473
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 5
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO - TEETER ANALYSIS
APPORTIONMENT OF ESTIMATED REDEMPTION BUYOUT
SCHEDULE B
ENTITY PRIOR APPORTION CURRENT APPORTION TOTAL
FACTOR AMOUNT FACTOR AMOUNT BUYOUT
COUNTY GENERAL ..............................
0.3829659 1,187,811.47 0,35~1390 69~,515.25 1,882,326.70
~OAD 0.028429~ 88,176.96
ACO 0.0020232 6,275 18
PROMOTION 0.001680~ 5,211 95
LIBRARY 0.0141055 ~3,749.!6
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION 0.0120085 $7,2(5.70
CiTY OF FORT BRAGG 0.00577~8
CITY OF POINT ARENA 0.0006781
~iTY OF WILLITS 0.0104082
CITY OF UKIAH R-1 0.0169565
UKIAH PARKING #1 0.000378&
CAL?ELLA WATER 0.0002548
6ROOKTRAILS COMM SERVICE 0.DD$11~8
ME~DOCINO COAST HOSPITAL 0.0068066
~OYO HARBOR DISTRICT D.D01~807
COAST LIFE SUPPORT 0.0010401
~OOKTRAILS MAINTENANCE DIST 0.0032917
6~OOKTRAILS MAINT 1976-1 0.0001122
EO HUMBOLDT COMM HOSPITAL O.OODO07g
ELK COMMUNITY SERVICES 0.0000110
!.K;AH VALLEY FiRE 0.0066238
~C~RFC & WCID 0.0006029
SE~DOCINO COMMUNITY SERVICES O.OOl4!Bg
~ENDOCINO COAST RECREATION 0.0059777
L~YTONVILLE WATER 0.0002171
POTTER VALLEY IRRIGATION 0.002566~
EEDWOOD VALLEY WATER 0.0011800
WESTPORT WATER 0.000088S
ALEXANDER ESTATES LIGHTING
COVELO LIGHTING
FAIRVIEW ACRES LIGHTING
HOPLAND LIGHTING
~AYTONVILLE LIGHTING
~010 LIGHTING
?AK KNOLL LIGHTING
EiVERWOOD TERRACE LIGHTING
~-~KIAH VILLAGE LIGHTING
~EST TALMAGE LIGHTING
~EA~OWBROOK MANOR SANITATION
~CFC & WCID
0.0284294 55,753.96 1~$,930.92
0.0020232 3,967.77 10,2~2.95
0.001680~ 3,295.50 8,507.45
D.01~1053 27,662.~$ 71,~11.59
0.0120085 23,550.32 60,796.02
A~DERSON VALLEY CEMETERY
CEMETERY DIST OF REDWOODS
¢OVELO CEMETERY
~OPLAND CEMETERY
~E~DO-LITTLE RIVER CEMETERY
POTTER VALLEY CEMETERY
~USSIAN RIVER CEMETERY
~ESTPORT-TEN MILE CEMETERY
17,911.19 0.0051552 10,110.06 28,021.25
2,103.20 0.0006057 1,187.86 3,291.06
32,282.19 0.0095219 18,673.75 50,955.94
52,550.44 0.0151900 29,789.68 ~82,$20.12
1,173.55 0.0003784 742.09 1,915.74
728.26 0.0001409 276.32 1,00~.58
9,660.~0 0.D018689 3,665.17 13,326.07
21,111.k$ 0.0068066 13,3~8.68 3~,~60.11
~,592.:i6 0.0008968 1,758.75 6,35~.31
$,225.1;9 0.0010~01 2,039.78 5,265.77
10,209.~!,7 D.00i97~0 3,873.25 14,082.82
3~8.ii~0 0.0000673 131.98 ~79.98
24.~0 0.0000079 15.~9 39.99
34.:2 0.0000066 12.94 47.06
20,5~.~5 0.0058~00 11,~53.04 $1,997.~9
1,869.~:6 0.000~$35 8~9.76 2,719.72
4,400.~ 0.D00851~ 1,669.71 6,070.59
18,5~0.5~ 0.0048565 9,~85.04 28,025.5~
673.3~ 0.0001303 255.5~ 928.90
7,359.65 0.0018728 3,672.82 11,012.47
$,659.90 0.0007080 1,388.~9 ~,0t8.$9
275.8~ 0.0000530 103.9~ 377.81
0.0001284 398.2:,
0.0001183 366.9?
0.00002~4 66.3l;
0.0001315 407.8(
0.0000543 168.42
O.OOOl~96 46~.0C
0.0001107
0.0000177 5~.9~
0.0001061 ~29.08
0.0000~66
0.0000206 63.89
0.0017123 5,310.89
0.0005634 1,7~7.45
0.0011376 3,528.39
0.0001145 355.13
0.0000910 282.25
0.D083852 1,194.74
0.D001534 (75.79
0.0036391 11,287.07
0.0000670 207.81
0.0001049 205.72 603.97
0.0001059 207.68 57&.60
0. D000192 37.65 104.02
0.0001204 256.12 6~3.98
0.0000~89 95.90 26~.~2
0.0001366 267.89 731.89
0.0001003 196.70 5~0.05
0.0000160 31.38 86.28
0.D080971 190.~ 519.51
0.0000422 82.76 227.30
D.D000187 36.67 100.56
0.001560~ 3,060.16 8,371.05
0.0004888 958.60 2,706.05
0.0009723 1,906.81 5,435.20
0.0000857 168.87 525.20
D.0000742 1~5.52 ~27.77
0.0003309 648.9~ 1,843.68
0.0001260 2~7.10 722.89
D.0030086 5,900.28 17,187.35
0.0000482 94.53 302.34
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 6
ENTITY PRIOR APPORTIOh CURRENT APPORTION TOTAL
FACTOR AMOUNT FACTOR AMOUNT BUYOUT
ALBION-LITTLE RIVER FIRE
COVELO FIRE
FORT 5RAGG RURAL FIRE
LEGGETT VALLEY FIRE
LITTLE LAKE FIRE
LONG VALLEY FIRE
~ENDOCINO FIRE
P!ERCY FIRE
~EDWOOD VLY-CALPELLA FIRE
$O~TH COAST FIRE
LITTLE LAKE WATER
ROUND VALLEY WATER
ANDERSON VALLEY COMM SERVICES
POTTER VALLEY COMM SERVICES
UKiAH VALLEY SANITATION
0.0008859 2,747.72 0.0007502 1,432.02 4,179.74
0.0005169 1,603.212 0.000403 790.34 2,$93.56
0.0012974 4,024.C!$ 0.0010454 2,050.17 '6,074.20
0.0001915 593.96 0. D001463 286.91 880.87
D.0020707 6,422.51 D.D017622 3,455.92 9,878.43
0.0004841 1,501.49 0.0002905 569.71 2,071.20
D.0012867 3,990.84 D.D010556 2,070.18 6,061.02
D.0001258 390.18 0.0001014 198.86 589.04
0.D022844 7,085.~.2 0.0019744 3,872.07 10,957.39
0.0013492 4,184.69 0.0011976 2,348.66 6,533.35
D.OO
0.0000355 110.11 0.0000297 58.25 168.36
0.0002393 742.22 0.0002154 418.51 1,160.73
0.0016012 4,966.~10 0.0013260 2,600.47 7,566.77
0.0005455 i,691.95 0.0004153 814.46 2,506.39
0.0008373 2,596.98 0.0005104 1,000.96 3,597.94
EDUC REVENUE AUGMENT FUND
TRAINABLE M R
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGIONAL OCCUP CENTER
EDdCATION OF CHILDREN
CAPITAL OUTLAY
PHYS HANDICAPPED MINORS
OEVELOP~ENT CENTER
EOUALIZATION OFFSET
A~ENA UNION
~ANCHESTER UNION
POINT ARENA UNION HIGH
ANDERSON VALLEY UNIFIED
FO~T 8RAGG UNIFIED
~E~gOCINO UNIFIED
ROUND VALLEY UNIFIED
LAYTONVILLE UNIFIED
LE~GETT VALLEY UNIFIED
,]LLITS UNIFIED
POTTER VALLEY UNIFIED
~'KiAH UNIFIED
rEK~OCINO COrM COLLEGE
~ZE~CY REDWOOD JC
P!E~CY UNIFIED SPEC TRUST
~ZERCY UNIFIED SPEC SCHOOLS
~C~O~A JUNIOR COLLEGE
O.O00OOOO
0.0016798
0.0092039
0.0021860
0.0038997
0.0044726
D.80260%
0.D020794
0.0164396
0.0108624
0.0021585
0.0109~44
0.0143116
0.0569076
0.0385579
0.0085436
0.0180623
0.0028190
0.052794~
0.0095554
0.1522861
0.042242~
0.0185061
0.0010368
0.0000534
0.0055139
0.03
5,210.Cig
28,546.92
6,780.12
12 095.35
13.872.27
8 095.97
6 449.49
50 989,25
33,690.95
6 694.8~
35 914.25
44 389.02
176 505.27
118 971.31
26 498.9)
56 022.2~
8 743.4~
163 747.72
29 637.1C
410,300.13
151,019.21
57,398.73
3,215.75
165.6)
17,101.9~
1.OOO0000 $,101,611.55
$,101,611.5)
0.0430046
0.0016798
0.0092059
0.0021860
0.0058997
0 0044726
D.D026096
0 0020794
0.0164596
0 0108624
D.D021585
O 0109544
0.0145116
0 0569076
0.0383579
0 0085436
0.0180625
0.0028190
D.0527944
0.0095554
0.1322861
0.O422425
0.0185061
0.0010568
0.0000534
0.0055139
84,337.95
3 294.32
18 050.11
4 287.05
7 647.85
8 771.38
5 117.78
4 077.99
32,240.3i
21 302.66
4 233.12
21 443.86
28 067.01
111 603.62
75225.11
16 755.17
35 422.65
5 528.45
10~ 5~7.07
18 739.45
259 431.22
82 842.95
36 293.00
2 033.31
104.72
10,813.52
1.0000000 1,961,137.36
1,961,137.39
84.337.93
8.50~.41
46 597.05
11 067.17
19 743.20
22.643.65
13 211.75
10~527.48
83 229.56
54.993.61
10,927.95
55 358.12
72 456.03
288.108.89
194 196.42
43 254.10
91 444.89
14 271.89
267 284.79
48 376.59
669 731m32
213 862.16
93 691.73
5 249.06
270.35
27,915.50
5,062,748.92
COUNTY STAFF PJ~PORT PAGE 7
ITEM NO: 7a.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Claims for Damages, Deny and Refer to Insurance Carrier
The claim from Duane Mahan Insurance Agency was received by
the City Clerk on June 10, 1993 is for alleged damages to
computer occurring May 14, 1993, due to electrical failure.
The claim from Ma~rlyn Bell was received June 28, 1993 for
alleged financial loss resulting from towed vehicle on June 20
1993. '
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny the claims for damages received from
Duane Mahan Insurance Company and Mairlyn Bell, and refer
them to the City's insurance carrier.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not take action
therefore extending the amount of time in which the claimant
may file suit, 2. A]oprove the claim and authorize payment of
damages. "
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A
Acct. No:
Appropriation Requested: N/A
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: Claimants ~
Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk~'~A~
Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachments: 1. Copy of claims.
· ] ,
RETURN TO:
C£ t='! Cle:k' s
C£i:y of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah. California 95482
CLA/I.~ANT ' $ NA~ME:
jUN 1 0 1993
CiTY ~'~" ~'"'~'""~ ~ ~v'tENT
Duane Mahan Insurance Agency
Phone No.. Res.
Work 462-7609
CLAI1.tANT ' S ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 859 (558 North S.tAt6 Street)
NumU: er S t.r ee~
Uk iah Ca.
City .. S ~a=e
95482
Zip
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSClN TO WHOM NOTIC~_S REGARDING THIS CLAI,~ SEOULD'
BE S=--NT (if differen= than above): Duane Mahan
DATE OF THE ACCIDENT 0H ¢)CCURRE~CE:
PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT OK OCCURR~ICi_:
5-14-93'
-.
558 North State Street, Ukiah, Ca.
GZ~__~ DESC_RI~TION OF TI--_. ACCIDE~ OR OCCURRE!~ (at~ach additional
pages if more space is needed}: Electrical explosion at the underground
c~te on Orchard A~enue(new Blue Shield park) Caused a power ~ailure and crash of
our I~M-FU Mainframe '
NA~S, IF ~O~N, OF ANY ~'UBLIC ~LOY~_ES CAUSII~G THE ~;JURY OR' LOSS:
NA/.IES A~D ADDRESS OF T~-~]ESSES:
NAME ADDRESS TI- .... OI~E
1. Terisse Acker % P.0. Box 859, Ukiah, Ca. 95482 (707) 462-7609
2. ~eck~ Ber~lund % P.O. Box 859t Ukiah, Ca. 95482 (707) 462-7609
N~4E AND ADDRESS OF DOCTCRS, HOSPITALS NHF--RE TREAT~_D:
.o
NA~4E ADDRESS T .... HO~
·
GENEP. AL DES~-RIPTION OF THE LOSS, iNJURY OR DA~MAGE SUFFEP~D:
Refer to attached repair estimates. Damage to the hardware and
· rrepairaoie damage to the Agena SoItware program on the hardware
-8-
TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: $4860.96
THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS:
Damages incurred to date:
Expenses for medical
hospital care: $
Loss of earnings: $
Special damages for:
Software
Attached receipt fcr repairs
General Damages
Estimated prospective damages
as far as known::
Future expenses for medical
and hospital care: $
Future loss of ~arnlngs: $
Other prospective ~peciai
damages: $
Prospective general damages~ $
$4860..96
I/We, the undersigned, declare..under penalty of perjury that I/we have
read the foregoing claim for damages and know the contents thereof;
that the same is true of my/our own~nowledge and belief, save and
except as to those mat~ers wherein s~a~ed on information and belief,
and as to them, I/we believe it to be/tr~e.
DATED: 6-8-93
SIGNATURE OF CLA/~h%NT ( S )
..
Received in City Clerk's Office this
FOR C~IMS RE~TING TO INJ~Y TO PERSON OR PERSO~ PROPERTY, THIS FC~-~
MUST BE FILED ~TH THE CITY OF UKIAH WITHIN SIX MONTHS
FROM THE ACCRU~ OF THE ~USE O~ ACTION. A ~AIM RELATING TO A~Y OTHER
~USE OF ACTION SHALL BE P~S~TED NO ~TER THAN ONE ~ AFTER ACCRU~
OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.
-9-
NOTICE OF CLAJii>I AGA/.I;ST "~'~:-- .... CiTY OF Ukiah , C,-.~,~.:O,..!''-- o'IA
R~
NI~
BZ
D~
PI
Gl
p~
(Soverr_~ent Code ss 910,
City Clerk's Office
City of Ukiah
300 Semi.arv Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
NAME
ADDRESS:
CITY OF Ut(JAH
JUN 2 2 1993
CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
Phone No.
Work
~Y .. S~a~e Zip Ccde
ADDRESS OF P~--RSON TO WHOM ~IOTICES REGABDII~G THIS CLAibX .SHOULD'
·
·
N7
.
~
G;
TOTAL A~4OUNT CLAIMED
THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL ~40UNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS:
Damages incurred to date:
Expenses for medical
,..., hospital! care:
Loss of earnin,qs:
'. :"S~'~'ial damages for:
General Damages . $
Estimated prospective damages
as far as known:
Future expenses for medical
and hospital care: $
Future loss of earnings: $
Other prospective special
damages: $
Prospective general damages: $
I/We, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that I/we have
read the foregoing claim for damages and know the contents thereof;
that the same is true of my/our own knowledge and belief, save and
except as to those matters wherein stated on information and belief,
and as to them, I/we believe ira'+to, be true.
SIGNATURE oF C~AISh%NT(S) ,.
Received in City Clerk's Office thi~~ day ,
FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO INJURY TO PERSON OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, THIS FC~.!
MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF UKIAH WITHIN SIX MONTHS
FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION. A CLAIM RELATING TO ANY OTHE_R
C~tUSE OF ACTION SHALL ~!E PRESENTED NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER ACCRUAL
OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION..
-9-
ITEM NO. 7b
DATE: JULY 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: REJECTION OF BIDS FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY OF PATH
SYSTEM AT ~fIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - SPEC. NO. 93-09
This proposed contract is part of the 1991\92 Ukiah Municipal Golf
Course Maintenance Program which was to improve deteriorated Golf
cart paths with two (2") inch thick asphalt concrete pavement. A
total of 15,000 square feet of pavement was proposed at an Engineer
estimate of $15,000.
Two bids were received with Parnum Paving providing the apparent
lowest bid in the total amount of $29,400. Since these bids were
double the budgeted e:~timate, Staff is recommending rejection of
the bids at this time. See attached Bid Tabulation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject all bids and revise size and details of
the project.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL PCLICY OPTIONS: Accept the low bid of Parnum
Paving and reduce the size of the project 25% ($7,350).
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A
Acct. No.:
695-6110-250
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: Reed Carpenter, Golf and Parks Supervisor
Prepared by: Robert Hunt, Civil Engineering Assistant 463-6284
Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Can~ace Horsley, Director of Community Services
Attachments: Bid Tabulation
APPROVED:
R:I I~ENG:kk
APATHS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~z~
~o
,,.
0
0
0
0
ITEM NO: 7c
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1993
,,AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Accept Letter of Resignation Received from Airport
Commissioner John JOhnson
Attached for Council acceptance is the letter from Commissioner
John Johnson notifying Airport Manager Don Bua of his
resignation. This r,~signation creates another vacancy on the
Airport Commission, for a total of three vacancies for Council
to fill.
The City Clerk has received five applications for the Airport
Commission, which ar,~ provided for Council review and action in
Unfinished Business portion of this agenda.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept letter of resignation received from
Airport Commissioner John Johnson and authorize Mayor to send
letter of appreciation.
ALTERNATIVE
COUNCIL
POLICY
OPTIONS:
Acct. No. (~--~ NOT budgeted): N/A
Acct. No:
Appropriation Requested: N/A
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: ~
~rep~ed by: Cathy Mckay, City Clerk ~//~w
~r~nat~d ~ith: Char~es ~. Rough, Jr., ~ity
~acnmen~~
Manager
JOHN W. JOHNSON
907 Marlene Street, #6
Ukiah, CA 95482
June 14, 1993
Mr. Don Bua
Airport Commission
1411 South State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Bua:
This is simply my letter of resignation from the Airport Commission. Due to the
demands of my job (I am now, administering two programs), I no longer have the time to
devote to the Commission. Therefore, I resign effectively immediately.
I thank you and the rest cilf the Airport staff for a pleasant informative experience.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. JOHNSON
JWJ/ml
c:\JWJ\Pers\Ltr to Air. comm 6/14/93
ITEM NO. 7d
DATE: .. July 7, 1993
AGENDA
SUMMARY
R E P OR.i
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF~ RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY ATTORNEY 1993-94
CONTRACT
At the June 22 and 2:1 budget session, the Council discussed and
approved a contract rate increase for the City Attorney. The
attached resolution delineates the approved changes between the
retainer rate, regular rate, and litigation rate. The overall
increase of these new rates is approximately 9.7%. Considering
this will represent the only rate increase in a period of five
years, this equals an approximate 2% increase per year which the
Council felt reflected a reasonable rate of increase.
The monthly retainer is increasing from $1,800 to $2,130 per month;
the hourly rate for hours worked in excess of the 30 hours per
month retainer increased from $70 to $75; and the hourly rate
increase for litigation increases from $85 to $90. Attached for
the Council's review and approval is the resolution increasing fees
for legal services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution approving City Attorney Rapport's 1993-94
Contract.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
i ·
Determine amendments are necessary prior to approval.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.:
Appropriation Requesteq: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: David Rapport
Prepared by: Candace ~iorsley, Assistant City Manager ~~
Coordinated with: Cha~'les L. Rough Jr. City Manager
Attachments: ' ' 1. Pr~osed rest l~tJLo/.
/-! 1/
3/PER/ASR.ATTY
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF UT[IAH INCREASING FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES
/
WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah (City) originally retained
5 David Rapport f¢:.r legal services on July 7, 1983; and
6 WHEREAS, Council last approved a rate increase on
7 June 7, 1989; and
8 WHEREAS, at. its budget hearing on June 22, 1993, the Council
9 approved a rate J.ncrease for legal services as proposed by the City
]0 Manager.
]] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that effective July 1, 1993,
]9 the following rate increases for Mr. Rapport's legal services are
] 3 approved:
14 1.
]5 2.
]7 3.
]8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this
]9 by the following roll call vote:
90 AYES:
9.] NOES:
9.9. ABSENT:
9.3
9.4
9.5 ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
98
3:PER\RES.ATTY
Monthly retainer increase from $1,800 to $2,130.
Hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 30 hours per
month increase from $70 to $75.
Hourly rate increase for litigation from $85 to $90.
day of
, 1993,
MAYOR
ITEM NO.
DATE:
7e
JULY 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT REGARDING CITY SURPLUS ITEM SALE
The City Warehouse Supervisor, Nora White, and Purchasing Assistant, Judy Jenney, conducted
a successful surplus sale. This ~vas a departure from tradition, in the past we have waited to be
part of a County or other agency sale.
Because there had been a long gap between sales, the accumulation of surplus items at the
Warehouse promoted us to try an independent sale.
The sale resulted in 33 bids, and brought in $20,542.28. We now have a mailing list of 32
bidders (one submitted two bids), and a methodology for conducting future sales. The option
of conducting independent sales can be used in the future if a consolidated auction is not
feasible.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL PCiLICY OPTIONS: N/A
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted):N/A
Acct. No.' N/A
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Prepared by: Louise Burt, Director of Finance 463-6220 ~
Coordinated with: Nora White, Purchase/Warehouse Supervisor
Attachments: Bidders List for Future Mailings
APPROVED:
R:l\PW:kk
AAUCTION
BOBBY ~. PUGH
119 DOOLAN DR.
UKIAH, CA 95482
3--22.-~A5 LISI - SURPLUS SALE
CHET I)UTTOi'.~
1099 CUNNINGHAM ST.
UKIAH, CA 95,i82
BRUCE WESELSKY
724 GROVE AVE.
UKIAH, CA 95482
DONALD RICH
340 PINOLEVILLE DR.
UKIAH CA 95482
NICHOLAS NASAROW
31050 A HWY 101N.
WILLITS CA 95490
RANDY FALK
P.O. BOX 347
PHILO CA 95466
BOB DOCKINS
7450 MYERS LANE
REDWOOD VALLEY CA 95470
RONALD McCUTCHEON
7400 EAST RD
REDWOOD VALLEY, CA 95470
GARY SMITH
16 BETTY ST.
UKIAH CA 95482
G.C. LIEBSCHER
P.O. BOX 999
UPPER LAKE CA 95485
GARY DOGALI
P.O. BOX 53
REDWOOD VALLEY CA 95470
JOHN MAYER
300 MUIR MILL RD
WILLITS CA 95470
STAN BARTOLOMEI
1320 AIRPORT RD
UKIAH CA 95482
JOSH TRIPP
360 NORGARD LANE
UKIAH CA 95482
DAVID TOCHER
480 LAWS AVE.
UKIAH CA 95482
ROSCOE MORRIS
4151 ROBINSON CREEK RD.
UKIAH, CA 95482
STEVE BEAMAN
8051 PINECREST DR.
REDWOOD VALLEY CA 95470
BOB WEATHERS
2408 POMO LANE
UKIAH, CA 95482
C. WHEELER & F. VAN VRANKEN
1117 COMMERCE DR.
UKIAH CA 95482
PHILIP LANAM
9501 EASTSIDE RD.
POTTER VALLEY CA 95469
MICHAEL WIELING
P.O. BOX 1043
UKIAH CA 95482
AUTOTECH DESIGN & MFG.
3901 N. STATE ST. #25-C
UKIAH CA 95482
GLEN FUGATE
1461 CARRIGAN LANE
UKIAH CA 95482
ROD JENNISON
27260 SKYVIEW DR.
WILLITS CA 95490
DAVID RODRIQUE
826 DORA AVE.
UKIAH CA 95482
DANNY JONES
6062 N STATE ST. APT. N
UKIAH CA 95482
ROBERT KIGGINS
608 MARSHALL
UKIAH CA 95482
ABIGAIL LOPEZ
P.O. BOX 152
TALMAGE CA 95481
GARY MILLER
6062 N. STATE ST.
UKIAH CA 95482
GENE BENASSINI
82 CENTRAL DR.
UKIAH CA 95482
TOM WILLIAMSON
5101 EASTSIDE CALPELLA RD
UKIAH CA 95482
i<ARL DAVIS
P.O. BOX 513
TALMAGE CA 95481
ITEM NO. 7f
DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
APPROVE CANCELLATION OF JULY 21, 1993 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Staff is requesting cancellation of the July 21, 1993 Regular City Council meeting, due to the absence of
members of the City Council and City, Manager who will be attending the annual League of California Cities
Executive Forum, and Redevelopment Conference, from July 21, through July 24.
t
RECOMMENDED ACTION. City Cot~ncil approve cancellation of July 21, 1993 City Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY O:I=TIONS:
1. Do not cancel July 21, 1993 meeting.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted). N/A
Appropriation Requested: N/A
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: City Manager
Prepared by: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachments: 1. Hone. ,4 . --,
APPROVED: :~~~-~~
R:4/CM
ASRMtgl
Acct. No.:
(if budgeted)
ITEM NO. 7q
DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT:
CONFIRM JIM MAST'IN TO CONTINUE AS CITY REPRESENTATIVE ON MENDOCINO
TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Recently, Councilman Mastin was confirmed by the Ukiah City Council as our City's representative to the
Mendocino Transit Authority's (MTA) Board of Directors, however, the term of office he was filling expired on
June 30, 1993. It is merely a formality, but the MTA will need the Ukiah City Council to reappoint Councilman
Mastin for the full term ending June 30, 1995.
RECOMMENDED ACTION' Authorize Staff to notify MTA that Jim Mastin will continue to serve on the MTA
Board of Directors on behalf of the City of Ukiah.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Determine that an alternate Ccuncilmember should be appointed to the MTA Board, beginning July
1, 1993.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A
Appropriation Requested: N/A
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: MTA
Prepared by: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachments: 1. Letter, dated June 11, 1993, from MTA.
Acct. No.'
(if budgeted)
APPROVED:/~~
v
R:4/CM
ASRMTA
Fred Schneiter, Mayor
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Mendocino Transit Authority
RECEiv
CITy CLERK DEPARTMENT
June 4, 1993
Dear Mr. Schneiter,
As you know, members are ~.ppointed to the MTA Board of Directors for two
year terms. Members may [:e reappointed, (there is no limit) and need not
be elected officials. Councilman Jim Mastin, who is finishing out Jim
Wattenburger's term, has ably represented the City of Ukiah, but that term
expires on June 30, 1993.
We encourage your Council to favorably consider the reappointment of Mr.
Mastin for the full term eading June 30, 1995.
Very truly yours,
General Manager
BR:al
c.c. Jim Mastin /
Kathy McKay
241 Plant Road - Ukiah, California 95482 - (707) 462-5765
ITEM NO. 7h
MEETING DATE 7- 7-9 3
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Renewal of Dispatch Agreement with City of Fort Bragg
for Contracted 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch Services
On November 1, 1992, the City of Ukiah commenced 9-1-1 Dispatch
services for the City of Fort Bragg Police Department. This
contracted service has worked very well and has proven beneficial
to both agencies. Attached for your consideration is the renewal
of this contract for Fiscal Year 1993-94. By agreement of both
Police Chiefs and approval of Ukiah City Manager, this contract
reflects no fee increase.
The City of Fort Bragg will continue to pay $6,500.00 per month
($7,800.00 per year) for dispatch services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the attached Dispatch Agreement to continue contracted
dispatch with the City of Fort Bragg.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
Ac~.N0.: 675-0800-645-001 (Revenue)
Acct. No.:
(if NOT budgeted)
Appropriation Requested: N,'A
Citizen Advised: N/A :
Requested by: Fred W. Keplinger, Director of Public Safety.': "i~
Prepared by: Fred W. K.=_plinger, Director of Public Safety
Coordinated with: Charles I... Rough, City Manager
Attachments: Dispatc':,~ Agreement
APPROVED BY
ADH I N I STRAT i ON/EN(; I NEER I NG
(707) 961-2823
F I NANCE/WATER WORKS (707) 961-2825
BEJI LD I NG/PLANN I NC (.707) 961-2828
May 27, 1993
City of Fort Bragg
Incorporated .4ugust .5, 1889
416 N. Franklin St,.
For~ Bragg, Ca 9543?
707-961-2825
FAX 707-961-2802
City of Ukiah
Attention: Police Chief Fred Keplinqer
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
Dear Chief Kepl[nger;
· .
Enclosed please ~find executed originals (two) of the First
Addendum to the Dispa":ch Agreement between the City of Ukiah and
Fort Bragg. This Addendum was approved by the Fort Bragg City
Council at their regular meeting of May 24, 1993.
Your cooperation in seeing that this matter is placed
before the Ukiah City Council for action would be appreciated.
Once the addendum has been approved, please execute both
agreements, returning one to my office.
Should you have any questions with respect to the Addendum,
please do not hesitate to contact Police Chief Thomas Bickell at
961-2800.
/dc
Enclosure
cc: Police Chief Bick.ell
Ukiah City Manager Charles Rough
Ukiah City Clerk Cathy McKay
Very t~ly yours,
DeeLynn R. Carpenter, CMC
City Clerk/Deputy City
Administrator
729UKIAH.LTR/AGREE93
RECESVED
JUN 7 1993
UKIAH POLICE DEPT
FIRST ADDENDUM
DISPATCH AGREEMENT
?
THIS AGREEMENT AN{D FIRST ADDENDUM is entered into this
day of , 1!393, by and between the City of Fort Bragg,
hereinafter referred 'to as "Fort Bragg" and City of Ukiah,
hereinafter referred to as "Ukiah."
Fort Bragg and Ukiah hereby agree as follows:
1. Page 1, Paragraph 2 under "NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO, AS FOLLOWS:" is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"2. In consideration of said service, FORT BRAGG shall
pay UKI..~H the sum of $6,500 per month, beginning
July 1, 1993 and ending when said contract is
renewed, on June 30, 1994. Any increase in said fee
shall b.~ based only upon a demonstrable increase in
the wori~load resulting in a need for additional
personn.~l, or direct personnel costs (increases in
compensation to personnel providing dispatch
service~ to Fort Bragg)."
2. Except as expressly amended herein, the Dispatch Agreement,
between Fort Bragg and Ukiah dated September 28, 1992 is
hereby reaffirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
pursuant to Council approval at their meeting of May 24, 1993.
GARY ~_~ MiLLIMAN,
City A~inistrator
ATTESqY~
DeeLyn~ R. carpenter, ~-C
City Cl~rk
City Attorney
CITY OF UKIAH:
Fred Schneiter,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathy McKay, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
FIRST ADDENDUM
DISPATCH AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT AND FIRST ADDENDUM is entered into this
day of , 19)3, by and between the City of Fort Bragg,
hereinafter referred t0 as "Fort Bragg" and City of Ukiah,
hereinafter referred to as "Ukiah."
Fort Bragg and Ukiah hereby agree as follows:
1. Page 1, Paragraph 2 under "NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO, AS FOLLOWS:" is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"2. In consideration of said service, FORT BRAGG shall
pay UKIAH the sum of $6,500 per month, beginning
July 1, 1993 and ending when said contract is
renewed, on June 30, 1994. Any increase in said fee
shall bEi. based only upon a demonstrable increase in
the workload resulting in a need for additional
personnel, or direct personnel costs (increases in
compensation to personnel providing dispatch
services to Fort Bragg)."
2. Except as express[I.y amended herein, the Dispatch Agreement,
between Fort Bragg and Ukiah dated September 28, 1992 is
hereby reaffirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
pursuant to Council approval at their meeting of May 24, 1993.
GARY D~ ~ILLIMAN,
City Administrator
ATTEST:,~
DeeLynn RU Carpenter, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"?~6mas C. ~oner~an,
CITY OF UKIAH:
Fred Schneiter,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathy McKay, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
ITEM NO._ 9a
DATE: _JUNE 30, 1993
AGENI3A SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-
20, SIDNEY MAUER, 528 S. SCHOOL ST.
At their meeting of May 26, 1993, "Ihe Planning Commission considered and approved revocation
of Use Permit No. 90-20 for a single family residential use in the C-1 zone at 528 S. School St.
The property owner has appealed the Planning Commission's action and the matter is before
the City Council for their action.
The use permit was originally approved for the single family use on April 11, 1990 and
revocation was addressed on Ma~' 8, 1991 because of potential non-compliance with an approval
condition regarding an on-site fer3ce. The current revocation consideration is based upon the
general provision that the use is '"...detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general
welfare of persons residing or w¢:rking in the neighborhood..."
(continued)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold Planning Commission revocation of Use Permit No. 90-20
and deny appeal.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
.
.
Determine Use Permit is appropriate with conditions, identify the necessary conditions,
and grant the appeal with the new conditions added to the Use Permit.
Grant the appeal as requested.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A
Acct. No.'
APPROVED:
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: Yes
Requested by: Property owner, Sidney Mauer
Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development
Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney, Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachments: 1. June 4, 1993 appeal letter from Scott Gaustad, attorney for property owner,
page 1.
2. Excerpt of the approved April 14 and 28, 1993 and draft May 26, 1993
Planning Commission meetings minutes, pages 2-32.
3. April 23 and May _1, 1993 Planning Commission staff reports, pages 33-68.
4. Materials submitted at the May 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting,
including rental agreement with cover letter, photographs of the property,
and petition, pages 69-95.
5. June 30, 1993 letter from Richard Gardiner, page 96.
6. June 30, 1993 letter from Bruce Crook, pages 97-98.
aries ~.. ~o-'~h~ ~. {3it~ Manager
The original conditions of approval, construction of a fenced play area and paved parking area
for two vehicles, were completed prior to the previous revocation hearing. The issues since then
have related to the use as a single family residential unit and how it interacts with adjacent
businesses. Though most of the testimony at the Planning Commission hearing centered around
the current tenants, long term ~aintenance, previous tenants and general property owner
responsibility for the situation were noted as significant issues making the use detrimental to the
health, safety, and welfare of th~.. neighborhood.
The applicants have proposed a~3 extensive rental agreement in an attempt to respond to the
issues identified during the Planning Commission hearing. Property maintenance, animals on
the site, and general demeanor of the tenants were addressed in the lease document. The
absence of a complete management plan, apparent lack of previous responsibility by the
property owners, and continued unacceptable activities by the tenants formed the basis for
revocation.
The concept of integrating residential uses in the downtown commercial core to increase the
vitality and viability of the area remains sound. However, greater attention will have to be placed
upon the design of the residential units and their relationship to adjacent businesses. An
emphasis on compatibility of uses for adjoining properties is required. Suitable indoor living area
and appropriate external screening is necessary to insure the co-existence of residential and
business activities. This is not th~. case for the subject property and thus rational for terminating
the use permit. The public testimony clearly identified the existing disparities.
Staff concurs with the action of the Planning Commission to revoke with the findings that the
continued use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. We
recommend upholding the revocation and denying the appeal.
mh:planning
asr 7/7/93 ppr¢
THOMAS S. BRIGHAM
G. SCOIT GAUSTAD
KATHY LOHR
LEGAL ASSISTANT
June 4, 1993
Clerk, City of Ukialn
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
BRIGHAM & GAUSTAD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORY THEATRE PLAZA
387 NORTH STATE STREET, SUITE 100
POST OFFICE BOX 358
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
TELEPHONE
707-463-1429
re: Revocation of Use Permit No. 90-20
528 South School Street
Dear Madam Clerk:
On behalf of the owrlers of 528 South School Street, I hereby appeal
the decision of the Ukiah Planning Commission, made at its meeting
on May 26, 1993. At that meeting, the Commission revoked Use
Permit No. 90-20.
The basis for this appeal, in general, is that the Commission's
decision is without factual or legal foundation. Specifically, the
evidence does not support 'a finding that there is a compelling
public necessity to discontinue a residential use at this location.
Further, the Commission continued the original revocation hearing
(on a 6-0 vote) for 30 days to allow the applicant to complete
certain requested items. The applicant performed the cleanup
requested and prepared a residential lease agreement that addressed
the Commission's concerns. At the May 26, 1993 hearing., the
commission cited the absence of a "management plan" (specified in
the minutes of the April 28 meeting) as the basis for its decision
to revoke the permit. However, as City Staff's May 21 memorandum
reflects, minutes o:~ the April 28 meeting were not available to the
applicant and the applicant had not, therefore, been given the
opportunity to compi[y with each issue. Applicant was not told what
is meant by a "management plan", let alone given the opportunity
to prepare one. The lease with additional provisions was what I
felt the Commissior~ meant by "management plan". To the extent it
was inadequate, that was my misunderstanding.
The Commission also wanted to see what further complaints were
received regarding the tenants on the property. As promised by the
applicant at the first hearing, any additional complaints would
result in an eviction. My office received two letters from Mr.
Crook after that he~ring and eviction proceedings were immediately
commenced.
Sincerely, / ff~
-. % --
the Commission concerning (;reeks and land use along creeks. If the Commission is
interested they would like to .,;chedule it for a future meeting.
Consensus of the Commission was to schedule the item for the beginning of the next
meeting, if it is a light agenda, and perhaps start the meeting at 6:30 P.M.
Commissioner Hoppe coml:,limented City staff for being very cooperative during the
housing project in which remodeling was being conducted for the handicapped.
She noted Kentucky Fried Chicken is piling more dirt around the trees and have, in fact,
planted permanent plants around the trees, which indicates they have no intention of
removing the dirt. The landscaping plan indicated shade trees were to be planted.
However, KFC has planted oleanders instead.
Mr. Harris discussed the mat:er of staff allowing KFC to consult with a local landscaper
to replace the trees which were proposed on the landscaping plan, with trees more suited
to our area. He advised letters have been written to Kentucky Fried Chicken requesting
compliance with the landscaping requirement of their Use Permit.
Commissioner Hoppe recommended the matter be scheduled for revocation due to lack
of compliance with the landscaping requirement.
Mr. Harris noted the matter of revocation of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Use Permit is
addressed in a his report wilh the recommendation that it not go through revocation
proceedings as the landscaping has been installed.
Commissioner Randolph raised questions concerning the species of plants and their
size that were planted on site. He observed additional dirt piled around the existing trees.
ON A MOTION by Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Randolph, it was
carried by a unanimous voice vote, to schedule revocation proceedings for Kentucky Fried
Chicken's Use Permit No. 92-.36 for the next Planning Commission meeting.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORTS
Community Development Director Michael Harris advised several years ago Use
Permit 90-20 was granted to Sidney Maurer for a single family unit in the C-1 zone on
South School Street. Recenlly the activities associated with the single family use are
causing serious concerns for the businesses in the neighborhood. Though it does provide
a unit for the housing stock, the problems being created are becoming intolerable. He
recommended a revocation hearing be set to have the applicant comply with the
conditions of the Use Permit. He noted that staff has no control over who lives in the
house, but there can be control of how the unit is being used.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 19
APRIL. 14, 1993
Staff requested that if the co~ldition was met to the satisfaction of staff, the matter would
be not reagendized.
Consensus of the Commission was that the matter need not be reagendized for the next
meeting.
ON A MOTION by Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Randolph, it was
carried by the following roll call vote, to continue the matter of Revocation of Use Permit
No. 92-36, Kentucky Fried Chicken, for one month to allow the applicant time to complete
the landscaping and revision of the sprinklers if necessary to avoid watering or hitting the
trees.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
C.
Commissioners Farr, Hoppe, Long, Menton, Randolph, Reid, and Chairman
Burke.
None.
None.
None.
Revocation of Use Permit Application No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney Maurer,
sinqle-family dwellincl at 528 South School Street, zoned C-1, Light
Commercial district.
Director of Community Development Michael Harris advised the subject Use Permit
was granted in April, 1990 to allow a single family use within a C-1 zone. Such uses are
permitted in a C-1 zone sul::~ject to a Use Permit. The property is located on School
Street in the midst of a commercial area. Although having 24-hour use, in the downtown
core is appropriate, it appeases that in this particular location, and this situation, the Use
Permit has been abused, the peace and welfare of the adjacent commercial uses has not
been complied with, and staff is recommending the Use Permit be revoked. Included in
the staff packet are several letters from adjacent property owners and employees,
expressing concern with the continued use of this facility as a single-family unit. He
explained the dwelling was a~=l old office which was converted to a single-family dwelling.
Staff had considerable difficulty getting the original conditions complied with relative to
fences and those issues which had been required by the Commission during the original
Use Permit consideration.
Staff has attempted to determine methods by which this use would be compatible in this
locale, but has been unsucc~ssful in identifying specific items which would not require
considerable on-going monitoring by the City or which should have already been
implemented by the property owner. In light of this fact, and the apparent inability of the
property owner to over-see the use in a manner consistent with the neighborhood, staff
must recommend revocatior,. The revocation is based on Ukiah City Code Section
9238(e) which indicates that use or continuance of the use would be detrimental to the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 15
APRIL 28, 1993
health and safety of person,,; working in the neighborhood. He discussed the matter of
encouraging residences in the downtown area as a means of providing stimulus to
businesses to stay open later and encourage commercial activity downtown. ,
8:45 P.M. - Commissioner Reid advised due to a personal conflict, he requested to be
excused from the meeting.
Chairman Burke excused C3mmissioner Reid from the meeting. He requested audience
participation in this matter b~9 limited to 10 minutes each for a proponent and opponent
position and all others be allowed three minutes to speak either for or against the project
without repeating others cor~lments. There will also be time for rebuttal.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENEID - 8:47 P.M.
Bruce Crook, residing at 650 North Bush Street, advised he operates a CPA office at
532 South School Street, ne::<t to subject site. He expressed concerns for the intolerable
conditions which have exist6d at 528 South School Street for more than five years. It is
his hope the Commission has read the comments, from him, fellow employees, adjacent
land owners, adjacent busir,esses, and concerned citizens. In addition to the letters
previously sent to the Comm~,ssion, he showed the Commission a photo album pertaining
to the subject property and ,'~urrounding neighborhood.
Their concerns were originally, brought to the Commission's attention in early 1990. Since
that time, a deplorable condition has deteriorated into an intolerable condition. At times
during the past five years, he has requested City staff to see if they could get the
residence cleaned up. The reason he went to City staff rather than the tenants or the
property owner is reflected i~'] the letters and comments submitted to the Commission.
During the Planning Commi,,~sion meeting in 1990, he was informed Dr. Waring stated
that he (Mr. Crook) was opl::,osed to a fence being built on his property. This was not
true. Also during the Commission meeting, Dr. Maurer stated that he (Mr. Crook) made
an offer to buy the property, and when he couldn't, he complained to the Planning
Commission. He advised hE~, did make an offer on the property, which was in excess of
what the realtor told him the property should be sold. The verbal counter offer was an
amount in excess of double .3f what the estimated fair market value of the property was
by the realtor and an apprais~;r. From this, he concluded, these men were not reasonable
people.
Many of the letters sent to the City requesting the revocation on the Use Permit address
the unsightliness, abusive r,rofanity, excessive noise, embarrassment on the part of
businesses to have clients an,d customers see and hear deplorable conditions, threatening
behavior, and lack of responsibility or caring by the property owners. The various letters
describe the problem from (Jifferent points of view but all come to virtually the same
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 16
APRIL 28, 1993
conclusion - revoke the Use Permit.
The pictures presented to the Commission cover the period from July 1992 through April
1993. The pictures show, i~'] chronological order, trash and an ill kept yard, vehicles on
blocks being worked on, g~,neral yard mess, motor home parked at various locations,
numerous cars and a motorcycle on property, tent, washing machine, numerous bicycles,
a station wagon used for sl,geping, a pickup with flat tires and junk in the back of it, 2
boats and 4 cars on propert'?, and other unsightly occurrences. He asked that since the
property owner has shown ~t callous disregard for the neighbors and neighborhood, the
Planning Commission take the only responsible course of action and revoke the Use
Permit. Revocation is the or~ly meaningful course of action for the Commission' because
it has been amply demonst-ated that short term measures performed by the property
owner to loosely comply with the City's requirements, do not endure. The short term
measures are performed solely to attain their immediate goals and then allowed to lapse.
Richard Gardner, residing at 11769 in Potter Valley, a physician, advised he has his
business office at 518 South School Street, two doors from the property in question. He
explained that often comes in early and leaves late at night. He tries to sit in his office
with his patients in quiet physiotherapy sessions, and yet he and his patients hear dogs
howling, barking, and crying from early in the morning until late at night. He has called
the police at least six times, and each time they respond that they cannot file a complaint
for disturbance, but he would have to file the complaint. He admitted his reluctance to
file the complaint because of the people who live at the residence. His patients are afraid
to park in front of that residence. The conditions at the residence jeopardizes his practice
and the safety of his patien'~.s. He felt the situation has gone from bad to worse, as
expressed by Mr. Crook. HE~. strongly urged the Commission to revoke the Use Permit.
Chairman Burke inquired if Dr. Gardner had observed the sources of the noise.
Dr. Gardner advised, from or'~e of his offices, he has seen the dogs tethered and barking.
He noted hearing people shcuting, from Oak Street, for the residents to keep their dogs
quiet. He explained his train of thought is being interrupted when he works late at night
and also the neighbors sleei~ is being interrupted.
Tim Beversdorf, residing at 921 Marlene Street, and a partner with Bruce Crook at 532
South School Street, discuss=~d the composition of the neighborhood in the past, noting
that the property in question used to be a commercial unit and was operated by the
current property owners. It was his opinion that the current use is not consistent with the
surrounding uses and is inappropriate with the businesses. He discussed business
owners and clients reluctancl~, to walk by the subject property. He noted a tenant prior
to the current one, was also a problem with small children playing in the parking lots. He
felt an owner should check o~l their property to make sure it is clean and not disturbing
the neighborhood.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 17
APRIL 28, 1993
Julie Sawyer, residing at 532 North Dora, and an employee of Crook, Beversdorf, and
Associates emphasized feeling threatened by the occupants at 528 South School Street.
She has been yelled at and both her and her co-workers have been threatened. She
noted her employer has installed bars on the office windows to protect the building almost
daily, they discuss how to protect themselves. She felt the situation is a threat to their
well being and to their business. For that reason, she requested the Commission revoke
the Use Permit.
Patty Gardner, residing in Potter Valley, who's office is located on the second floor of
518 South School Street, explained her office faces south into the yard of the subject
property. She noted seeing piles of debris in the yard and puppies crying in a small
enclosed area. She advisec:l having to close her window to block out the incessant noise
of the crying and barking dogs. She has called the police department twice and has seen
them talk to the tenants, however, the tenants do nothing to correct the situation. She
felt the owners of the prope,ty are as unresponsive as the tenants because nothing has
changed in the past couple ~/ears to improve the situation. She felt if you own property,
you have a responsibility to the community and to your neighbors to maintain it in a way
in which everyone can live harmoniously.
Sue Knight, residing at 1,-300 Tomki, Redwood Valley, and working at Crook and
Beversdorf, recalled severa times when the police have been to the subject property.
The employees at Crook and Beversdorf have talked about their safety and will be taking
a course in the use of mace 'this week. She advised they are taking the course to protect
themselves from the tenants on the property and because of possible actions the tenants
may take as a result of this hearing.
Commissioner Menton qu~,stioned Ms. Knight if she has ever been threatened by any
of the tenants.
Ms. Knight advised the tenants have made verbal comments from their house to
employees, although no physical actions have occurred. She explained they have felt
threatened on numerous occasions.
Commissioner Randolph questioned Ms. Knight concerning what initiates the verbal
comments from the tenants.
Ms. Knight explained the t~,nants usually get into some type of argument in the house
and then take it outside. ~-~he explained they have two offices with a breezeway in
between. At times, employees walk back and forth between the offices. Several times,
while they have been outside their office, the tenants have made verbal comments to
them which are threatening.
Scott Gausted, residing e.t 528 South Spring Street, advised he is an attorney
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 18
APRIL 28, 1993
representing Drs. Maurer amd Waring, the property owners of 528 South State Street.
He reminded the Commissi()n that the subject property is located within a C-1 zone and
that another residence is located in the rear of the subject property adjoining a
commercial unit, and arour'~d the corner on Mill Street are apartments. The subject
property abuts apartments and there are other residences within a block of this residence.
He felt the property is not is(:)lated in that there are other residences around this'property.
He felt there are two types of complaints being expressed in the letters. One, the
complaints by staff regardir~g certain specific problems with the property, such as the
fence which took awhile to complete, the motor home which was ultimately resolved
although not as quickly as staff wanted or should have been done. The second area of
complaints involve what the citizens describe as the feeling or being threatened,
harassed, and vulgarity an,~J profanity expounded by the tenants.
He would like those presenl: to understand that those complaints were never told to his
clients. Apparently there was a disagreement in 1990 between Mr. Crook and Dr.
Waring, and Mr. Crook new,~r saw fit to complain to Dr. Waring about the situation with
the tenants on the property. Mr. Crook's complaints have been to staff. Staff's letters to
his client has been regarding trash, motor homes, etc., but there are no complaints to his
clients about what the tenants have been doing to their neighbors. When his clients
found out, Dr. Waring went t.3 all the neighbors and talked to them. He was appalled and
distressed. He was not aw~.re this situation was happening and both he and Dr. Maurer
will not allow it to happen on the property any longer. He advised they have been aware
of general cleanup and trash problems with the tenants but not actual harassment and
threats which the neighbors have felt. The landlords request their neighbors keep them
aware of the situation on the property because they do not want it to continue. The
tenants in question have bE~,en a problem in the past and they have been told by their
landlord that, if there is another complaint, they will have him (Mr. Gausted) serve an
eviction notice on the tenants. If those concerns are unable to reach the doctors, they
can call him and he will rep()rt it to the doctors. He felt the heart of the issue is whether
the problem is the fact thai there is a Use Permit allowing a residence, the tenants
occupying the residence, or any tenant who is not reasonable and who does not live up
to the standards we all expect. He submitted it is the tenants that are the problem. The
use as the residence is not t'3e problem. If the Use Permit is revoked, he noted there are
a number of uses under (3-1 which could probably pose as many or more problems. He
described some of the allowable uses in a C-1 zone. The problem with the tenant
occupying the residence ne.ads to be rectified and felt revocation of the Use Permit will
not solve the problem.
Chairman Burke identified the problem as not only the tenants, but also the way in which
the property is maintained. He inquired as to what the property owner intends to do
about maintenance of the p~operty.
Mr. Gausted advised the pr()perty owners will be taking a more active role in the property
MINUTES OF THE PLANNIING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 19
APRIL 28, 1993
to ensure it is kept up to a reasonable standard.
Chairman Burke noted thE, rest of the neighborhood is kept up nicely and there is a
concerted effort by the City to make that downtown area look nice. This subject property
is a blight in that area, and has been since it has been used as a residence.
Commissioner Randolph questioned Mr. Gausted concerning the length of time in which
the current tenants have bean residing on the property.
Mr. Gausted responded the~y have been residing on the property for three years.
Commissioner Randolph noted there seems to be a management, as well as a tenant
issue. He inquired of Mr. Gausted concerning any steps his client has taken to mitigate
the situation in terms of on-site property management, exterior building maintenance,
and/or on-site landscaping.
Mr. Gausted advised it is hi~, understanding no program has been instituted as yet by his
clients. In the past there h~ve been contact with the tenants, and problems resolved.
They will take the obligation upon themselves to make sure the property is maintained,
not leaving the obligation to the tenant.
Commissioner Hoppe recalled there being a long history of problems with this property.
She advised being on the Commission when the matter of the fence was brought before
the Commission and explained it took an excess amount of time to construct the fence,
for what seems to be a simple construction job. She questioned what reliance the
Commission can put on Mr. Gausted saying that things will change, when they have been
steady for some time.
Mr. Gausted strongly defended the landlords intention to keep the property clean. He
felt the majority of the complaints received are regarding the conduct of the tenant, which
is a great concern to his clie~t. His clients are now aware of the tenants' impact on the
neighbors.
,
Commissioner Farr inquired if the owners of the property live in this area and if they
have driven by the property ,3n occasion.
Mr. Gausted advised the owners of the property do live in the area and have worked on
the property.
Commissioner Hoppe inquired of Dr. Gardner if he ever contacted the landlord about
problems with the tenants.
Dr. Gardner advised he first became aware of who the landlord was when he read the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 20
APRIL 28, 1993
article in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 30, 1993. He felt since the matter was
publicized in the paper there, has been ample opportunity for the property owners to do
something about the nuisar'~ce which the property and the tenants represent. Even
though Mr. Gausted said his client reached all of the neighbors, he was not contacted.
In addition, since this matter was on the front page of the newspaper, there has been no
significant improvement, especially with regard to the noise and loitering of the tenants.
He felt a responsible landlord would have been there and made sure things changed,
rather than have his lawyer .";peak for him before the Commission.
Mr. Crook noted in his previous statement to the Commission, there Were untruths told
to the Commission at a previous meeting when it was first brought to the Commission's
attention. He noted the only, reason he tried to purchase the property was to get rid of
the problem, but that didn't work. He felt the only responsible action at this point, after
five years, is the revocation .of the Use Permit.
Commissioner Hoppe req~.Jested dlarification regarding the claim that no one has
contacted the owners regarding the behavior of the tenant.
Mr. Crook advised he has not contacted the owners, however, the police have been to
the site on several occasion.,.'; and may have contacted them.
Mrs. Gardner felt it shouldr~'t be the responsibilitY of the neighbors to point out the
problems to the property owr~ers because anyone walking or driving by the property can
see what problems exist.
Diane Chlado, residing at 1500 Reisling Court, advised she works at 516 South School
Street and this has been an on-going issue for the past five years with several tenant.
She explained the same problems have existed from all of the tenants which have been
placed in that residence. Sh~.. explained both her and their clients feel threatened and felt
the property at 528 South School Street defeats the City and the downtown business
community' purpose. She felt the situation is distressful and embarrassing. She advised
receiving complaints from their clients regarding the existing conditions of the subject
property. Property owners in the neighborhood have made efforts to contribute to
increasing their property va ues by making their properties more presentable. She
advised she has personally bt~.en threatened by the occupants of the subject property and
would like the visible and audible problems to cease.
Ms. Knight, advised when .,;he went to work at Mr. Crook's office 13 years ago, the
subject property was a medical office. They experienced other people parking in their
parking lot, which did not lea',/e room for their clients, but they did not have the situation
which exists today.
Chairman Burke inquired of Mr. Gausted as to the number of occupants of the house
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 21
APRIL'28, 1993
and the size of the house.
Mr. Gausted advised the hcuse is approximately 900 square feet in size and perhaps two
or three occupants live in the house. He noted there were children living there at one
time, but only adults reside there now.
Commissioner Menton inquired, due to the on-going problem, if any interest or initiation
had been considered by the owner to change the occupancy of the structure to a more
compatible use than a residential rental.
Mr. Gausted advised the owner has considered that option. He explained the reasoning
for the original request fo? a Use Permit was because there appeared to be an
abundance of commercial space available and residential was at a premium. He was not
aware if the owners have located commercial tenants to move into the dwelling. He has
advised his clients to explore this option and perhaps it would solve the problem.
Commissioner Randolph i~lquired if the dwelling is a single-family unit and being used
strictly as a single-family dwelling, rather than a transitional home.
Mr. Gausted advised thero have been two tenancies on the property in the past five
years. He has spoken with Dr. Maurer and, as a condition of good faith, they will hire
someone to do regular landscape maintenance on the property. As he understands the
law, once a Use Permit has been issued, and improvements have been made pursuant
to that Use Permit, it's a v6.sted property right which runs with the land. For it to be
revoked, the Commission ne~=ds to find a compelling public interest to do so and also that
there's no less drastic remedy. He felt the less drastic remedy is the removal of the
current tenants, the implementation of conditions to satisfy the neighbors such as
provisions in the lease stipulating no pets, limiting the number of vehicles on site, or the
inclusion of landscaping requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED- 9:31 P.M.
Commissioner Randolph expressed concerns for the on-going management problem
and felt it is the responsibility of the property owners rather than the tenants. He also
expressed concern for the impacts on the neighbors due to the lack of property
management. He felt the property owners have demonstrated a lack of concern for their
property or surrounding use.,,,.
Commissioner Hoppe explained that the Commission has talked about the desirability
of having residential use downtown. Residents in the downtown area would contribute
to the economic revitalization of the downtown. She noted across the street from this
project, in a newly constructed building, the Commission required the upper story be used
for residential purposes. It would be somewhat inconsistent to say this is not suitable for
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 22
APRIL 28, 1993
residential use, when across the street is something eminently suitable for residential use.
She noted the items which tl3e neighbors are complaining about are not residential uses.
She felt it is clearly a problem of the land owner's lack of maintenance of the property
and, if it were to convert to commercial use, these same landowners would be equally
irresponsible. She noted it is not within the Commission's purview to say that someone
can't own property because 'they are not responsible. She strongly opposed revoking the
Use Permit, however, felt s¢:mething should be done about the situation. She explained
staff mentioned at the last r~3eeting that the City Attorney, or others, have been looking
into the question of having this property declared a public nuisance which should be
abated, and felt that is the a['.~proach to take on this matter. She felt these activities would
be just as objectionable in ~ residential area as they are in a commercial area.
A MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Farr, to
not revoke the Use Permit, but to recommend the City Council take action in abating
these activities as a public r uisance.
Chairman Burke noted he did not support the motion, stating it is not the City's
responsibility. He read Ukial3 City Code Section 9238(e) whereby it states: "At any time
if the use or continuance cf the use of such use permit or variance is or would be
detrimental to the health, sa'l':ety, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborho~:)d of such use...". He explained there has been an on-going
conflict for a number of years which the owners are not willing to address. Subsequently,
he did not believe the owners would address the problem in the future. He felt this is a
much more deplorable situation and the neighbors must be considered.
Commissioner Farr advisecl in reviewing the Use Permit for revocation the Commission
must look at whether or not the conditions have been met and adhered to over a period
of time. In addition, consider~ation should be made as to whether or not the applicant has
made a good faith effort to rr~ake the project work. At various times, it has been an on-
going discussion among Commissioner's whether to allow mixed uses and he explained
problems which may occur. In his opinion, the applicant has not made a good faith effort
as is apparent when viewing the site.
He discussed the importancE; of having a safe area for children to play on the property
and recalled the issue of constructing a fence, which was a condition of the Use Permit.
In viewing the site today, with attention toward the child play area, he observed it to be
knee deep in weeds and a si~:eable garbage dump nearby. No responsible parent would
allow their child to play in thi~,.~ area.
In his opinion, the conditions have not been met or adhered to, and there has not been
a good faith effort. He noted in every revocation proceeding which he has been apart of
on this Commission, they haw=. always given the applicant 30-60 days to devise a solution
and to correct the problem. He felt he could not go along with such an action without
MINUTES OF THE PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 23
APRIL 28, 1993
adding extra conditions, i.e. It new child play area, a proper facility for caring for pets, and
additional fencing to separatE; the site from the parking lot of the adjacent business owner.
Commissioner Long concur'red with Commissioner Hoppe in that he did not want to see
revocation of a Use Permit. He agreed with Commissioner Farr's views of the'situation,
specifically with regard to imposing additional conditions. He would like it specified that
someone will take care of the property if the applicants are unable to do it themselves,
however they, not the tenanl~s, have the ultimate responsibility to maintain the property.
He is of the opinion that the ,eviction of the present tenants be initiated immediately. He
was doubtful that any impro~.,ements would take place at the site.
Chairman Burke noted that., even after landscaping and cleaning the site, allowing the
existing tenants to remain on site will not change matters. No matter what is done to the
property, the matter of the tanants is not being addressed. He also felt he would be
agreeable to some condition:s being imposed on the project if it could happen in a short
period of time.
Commissioner Hoppe advised she is in agreement with the conditions proposed by
Commissioner Farr and felt they would be reasonable.
Chairman Burke inquired of staff if it would be appropriate to impose conditions on the
applicant at this time.
Mr. Harris explained imposing conditions should be tied with performance if time is being
considered in which to determine whether compliance with Section 9238(e) will be met.
He would be hesitant to make conditions specific on the people who are residing at the
site as it might infringe into t~e human rights arena. However, performance standards
which can be met within a ce~'tain time frame. The Commission could not legally address
the eviction issue.
Chairman Burke noted Mr. ~.{austed has made himself available to take complaints from
persons as an avenue for the neighbors. He felt a time limit needs to be imposed to
solve the existing problem.
Commissioner Randolph suggested six months would be appropriate in order to affect
the lease and/or a formal property management program. He felt it should be cleaned
up prior to six months but to review the progress at that time.
Chairman Burke disagreed with Commissioner Randolph in that six months is too long
a time period in light of the fact that the problem has gone on for over two years. He felt
60 days would be an adequate time limit.
Mr. Harris advised that, with regard to performance standards, the Commission could
include standards which state no threats be provided by the tenants and no dog~ allowed
MINUTES OF THE PLANNIHG COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 24
APRIL 28, 1993
to bark. These standards could be carried over to any tenant occupying the residence.
Commissioner Menton, with regard to City Code 9238(e), felt a need to separate
whether the Commission is .c. oing to make a determination concerning the City Code, or
if the Commission is going to police some action which has been going on for a long time.
He felt, from the testimony .of the audience, the general welfare of the neighborhood
needs to be protected. Tho.,;e in the neighborhood have rights which can't be ignored.
He felt their patience and good will has been tested and it is the Commission's job, not
to try to patch things up, [:)ut to first address this issue as to whether or not the
Commission is going to defir:e its position specifically to the Code.
Commissioner Long que.,~tioned whether revoking a Use Permit under these
circumstances, would diminish the philosophy of the City to integrate commercial and
residential uses. It could be deemed contradictory to encourage it in one place and to
revoke it in this instance.
Commissioner Hoppe commented that, if the Commission revokes the Use Permit, it
would be saying residential use is not appropriate on this site because the Commission
could not say these particular tenants are not appropriate on the site.
Chairman Burke requested Commissioner Farr to clarify the conditions he recommended
be imposed upon the Use Permit and also to set a time limit.
Commissioner Farr advised, upon listening to the Commission's discussion on this
matter, it is a difficult situation to mitigate the problems with the Use Permit. He
discussed similar situations ir~ which residential and multi-family uses co-mingle well with
commercial uses. He expre.~.sed uncertainty as to whether imposing conditions on the
Use Permit would solve the [)roblem, recalling the condition for the applicant to build a
fence. He discussed probler~s occurring in the selection of specific conditions for this
project and was unsure if a time limit or anything else would help in this situation.
Chairman Burke requested the motion be read again.
Mr. Harris responded to Commissioner Long's concern regarding a Use Permit by
explaining that a Use Permit is defined to a specific location. By granting the Use Permit
in that location, or revoking it, is not going contrary to the policy of trying to encourage
residential uses downtown. 'l'he Commission would be saying this use at this location is
appropriate and conditions m~y be imposed. With regard to Section 9238(e) of the City
Code, the Commission is se,ying the use at that location may be detrimental. The
Commission is not setting a specific precedent by revoking the Use Permit, in which no
further residential uses will be allowed downtown. The Commission would be stating that,
at this particular location, sin[:lle-family use is not appropriate.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 25
APRIL 28, 1993
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY Commissioner Hoppe with consensus of the second.
A MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Long, to
delay revocation of Use Pemlit 90-29 for one month on the condition that the owner of
the property set up a program to maintain the property in a reasonably neat and tidy
manner (the physical premi,~;es), to assure that tenants are not noisy or abusive to
neighbors, that there are no barking or otherwise noisy animals on the premises, that
small children are kept within the play area or under control so they don't wander into the
street or the other parking lot,,:=, that the owner build a fence along the south property line
to better separate their property.
Commissioner Long recommended the motion be amended to include the condition that
the property be maintained iq a manner which is commensurate with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hoppe was agreeable to the amendment to the motion. Commissioner
Long was uncertain if the condition regarding the tenants not being noisy or abusive is
permissible or enforceable.
Chairman Burke clarified Commissioner Hoppe's recommendation in that the problem
has persisted over the years ~nd, if the problem persists for the next 30 days, the Use
Permit will be revoked.
Commissioner Hoppe was ir~ agreement with Chairman Burke's explanation. She felt
it is the landowners obligation to oversee the'tenants.
Commissioner Long was i,1 agreement with Commissioner Hoppe's motion with
conditions.
Commissioner Farr advised he likes the idea of the fence separating the two properties,
however, given past performa~lce, he is leery that a fence there may make the problem
worse instead of better.
Commissioner Hoppe suggested the design of the fence be reviewed by Staff.
Chairman Burke expressed a. hope that the property owners are now aware that it has
come to the point that enough is enough. If the situation is not taken care of, the Use
Permit will be revoked.
Commissioner Randolph exp~-essed concern for, and requested a property management
plan be presented to the Commission for review. He also recommended that because
of the history of barking dogs and other pets on the site, that the overall management
plan contain a provision that p.gts, especially dogs, not be allowed on that site.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 26
APRIL 28, 1993
Commissioner Hoppe felt the property owner should submit a plan and that most of the
provisions should be included in the lease, if they haven't already. The owner should
submit to the Commission a revised lease which they are requiring the tenants to sign.
Commissioner Randolph clarified his proposal to include a property management plan
together with a copy of the ~'epresentative lease to be employed on the site, and to be
submitted to the Planning Director.
C0mmissioner Hoppe recommended this should be done within 30 days, as part of the
motion, or the Use Permit will be revoked.
Chairman Burke questioned whether to require no pets in the lease.
Commissioner Randolph responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Hoppe explained dogs not be allowed.
Commissioner Menton inquired, if the permit were to be reviewed in 30 days, by which
instrument would the revocation process be administered.
Chairman Burke advised if ~tny further complaints by the surrounding neighbors can be
validated, and if no significa~lt action is taken within 30 days, the Commission should
revoke the Use Permit.
Commissioner Menton requested a list of complaints by any neighbors ~)e made
available to the Commission I:,rior to the meeting, so if the Commission has any questions
or things the Commission wi~hes to look into, they can do that prior to the meeting. He
would like to include as an arr~endment to the motion that a list of complaints be provided
to the Planning Commission n their packets.
Mr. Harris advised Commissioner Menton's request would be considered a direction to
staff. He noted staff will also include any police reports that may have been filed on the
project.
MOTION MADE BY Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Long, with
amendments, to delay revocation of Use Permit 90-29 for one month, was carried by the
following roll call vote, with the following conditions:
.
.
The owner of the property shall set up a program to maintain the property in a
reasonably neat and ti(Jy manner - the physical premises.
The property owner sh~ll ensure the tenants are not noisy or abusive to neighbors.
There shall be no bark, ng or otherwise noisy animals on the premises.
Small children shall bE~, kept within the play area or under control so as not to
,,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 27
APRIL 28, 1993
.
.
.
.
wander into the street or the other parking lots.
The property owner s~all construct a fence along the south property line to better
separate the properti~)s.
The property shall be maintained in a manner which is commensurate with the rest
of the neighborhood.
The design of the fence shall be reviewed by Staff.
A property management plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director together
with a copy of the rel~resentative lease to be employed on the site.
A stipulation in the le~se agreement state that no pets be allowed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner~. Farr, Hoppe, Long, Menton, Randolph, and Chairman
Burke.
None.
Reid.
None.
Mr. Harris advised the date of the meeting would be May 26, 1993.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Randolph reported the Mendocino Environmental Center continuing to
contact him with concern there has not been any follow-up with the landowner working
with the State Department o! Fish and Game regarding the Bakers Meadowfoam and
means of protecting the gen,gral wetlands area which were discussed in the EIR. He
inquired if Mr. Harris had received a letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley. He inquired as to
what the City is doing to facilitate this overall process.
Mr. Harris advised it is his understanding Jack Booth was on-site with the property owner
approximately two weeks ago, making specific contact and trying to identify were species
were on the site. He advise¢:l he has not received a report of their meeting.
Commissioner Randolph inquired if the City is taking any active stance in this regard.
Mr. Harris explained staff is depending on the Department of Fish and Game for their
expertise.
Commissioner Farr recalled,, from the joint meeting with the City Council, City Manager
Chuck Rough as saying he di(:J not have a solution but would follow up on it and get back
to the Commission.
Chairman Burke explained if it is the City's responsibility to monitor the project, perhaps
the City Manager could report: to the Commission concerning his findings.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 28
APRIL 28, 1993
A. Revocation of Use Permit No. 90-20, Sidney Maurer, sinai= family dwellin_~
at 528 South School Street, zoned C-1, Li.qht Commercial District.
Planning Director Michael Harris advised the Planning Commission, at their meeting
of April 28, 1993, conducted *':he Public Hearing regarding the revocation of Use Permit
No. 90-20, and continued it fcr 30 days to evaluate further any comments received from
adjacent property owners and also to provide the applicant an opportunity to address the
issues which have been discussed by the Planning Commission. He noted two written
communications which were received April 29 and April 30, 1993 were distributed at the
meeting. He noted the May 2,5 letter from Scott Gaustad presenting a rental agreement
proposing conditions for the use and manner in which the tenant would conduct
themselves, including maintenance of the yard, vehicles, and storage.
He noted it is Staff's undemtanding the Planning Commission desired the yard be
professionally maintained and not the responsibility of the tenant. Staff believes the
maintenance requirement sho.~ld be the property owners' responsibility from the onset so
they will have full control of tl"e maintenance of the property.
He discussed concerns expressed regarding the conduct of the tenants. The Planning
Commission indicated eviction should take place in the event activities become
detrimental to the adjacent properties. He explained this has been addressed in the lease
agreement. An issue whicl' must be addressed is the definition of unreasonable
interference, endangering, or interfering with the owners of adjacent property, and who
becomes a referee in that type of situation.
He advised Staff has not received any phone calls relative to incidents within the last 30
days concerning this matter and no police reports have been taken. However, an inquiry
was received concerning the potential conflict of interest of a Planning Commissioner.
Staff has reviewed the matter with the City Attorney and since them is no financial
interest involved with the Corr~missioner, this would not constitute a conflict of interest.
Staff retains their original recommendation that, unless performance standards can be
met, the Use Permit should be revoked. It appears the property has not been maintained
in an appropriate manner, thE: same section of the Code relative to the public health,
safety, and welfare has not been met. This is a basis for revocation of this Use Permit.
Chairman Burke clarified the matter of the letter from Crook, Beversdorf & Associates,
which notes an incident happened on April 15, 1993, prior, not subsequent, to the April
28, 1993 Planning Commissioq meeting.
Commissioner Randolph noted the Commission had asked the applicant at the previous
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 3
MAY'26, 1993
meeting to provide a property management plan but instead they have submitted a lease
agreement.
Considerable discussion followed concerning the property owner not submitting a
property management plan to the Commission as requested and their attempt to interpret
portions of the lease agreement. Of particular concern to the Commission was the item
regarding animals on the premises. There was some question as to whether the owner
would give his permission at ~. later date and allow animals, which some Commissioners
felt did not satisfy the intent.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:20 P.M
Chairman Burke commented on an article by Mr. Crook in the Ukiah Daily Journal which
was published recently. It wa,,~ his opinion that all Planning Commissioners do their duty.
Mr. Crook may not have agre~d with their decision but all the Commissioners are serving
without compensation. To ir~dicate or imply that they are not doing their duty, is a
disservice to the Commissioners.
Scoff Gaustad, resident of 528 South Spring Street and attorney representing Dm.
Maurer and Waring, property owners, explained the lack of knowledge on the part of the
property owners concerning the tenants' harassment and noisy conduct with the
neighbors. His clients were not aware of specific problems their neighbors were having
with the tenants. Eviction proceedings have commenced. They have also attempted to
address the other concerns ¢:,f the Commission with a management plan. The lease
agreement is what he considers to be a management plan as far as the landlord dealing
with tenants. The provision concerning pets is meant to say there will be no pets,
animals or birds on the property whatsoever, which is what "none" meant in the
agreement submitted to the Commission. He will be happy to reword that portion so
there will be no exceptions available to the landlords.
He advised the property has been cleaned since the last meeting. Trees have been
planted and the dogs are no longer there. Dr. Maurer spoke to Mr. Crook about a fence
along the common boundary line. It is Dr. Maurer's understanding that Mr. Crook does
not want a fence for the reason that it might be a place for graffiti. He and his clients
have discussed installing lar~dscaping to delineate boundary lines. He discussed
professional verses tenant property maintenance and stressed the importance of the
tenant being responsible as it will give them an opportunity to take pride in the residence.
The lease states that if the tenant does not maintain the property, a professional service
will be hired which will be paid for by the property owners.
He felt his clients have shown a good faith effort to the Planning Commission as well as
their neighbors during the past month. It was his opinion residential use is compatible
with the area as other residential uses are nearby. With reasonable tenants on the
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 4
MAY 26, 1993
property, and with the properly owners showing respect for their neighbors, a residential
use would continue to be con; patible. His clients do not want to eliminate residential use
at this location. He felt the issue is reasonable tenants whether they are residential or
commercial. He noted it is his understanding that once a Use Permit is granted, it is not
something which can be easily revoked. To do so, the Commissioners must find there
is a compelling public necessity to revoke the Use Permit and there is no easier, or less
dramatic, way to accomplish the Commission's concerns. He stressed the importance
of having reasonable tenants and reasonable landlords to take care of the problems as
they arise.
He reminded the Commissio~ers of the testimony at the last meeting from people in
support of revoking the Use Permit, in which no one said they ever called Dr. Maurer or
Dr. Waring to complain to them of the problems with the tenants. He distinguished the
complaints about the tenants with regard to harassment and noise to the complaint about
installing the fence, and felt the Commission could not revoke the Use Permit on the
basis of numerous complaints of the neighbors regarding the conduct of the tenant, when
no one informed the property' owners of the situation. He was of the opinion that the
landlord cannot act responsib y if they don't know what is happening.
Chairman Burke explained th.9 landlord took a long time to correct some problems which
the City brought to their attenl~ion.
Commissioner Randolph questioned Mr. Gaustad if there would be a problem providing
a more precisely written mana.gement plan which would detail the owners responsibility
with regard to the maintenance of the grounds, rather than a rental agreement.
Mr. Gaustad responded he had no problem with drafting such a document and would be
able to submit a plan outlining what his clients intend to do on the property with regard
to exterior repairs.
Chairman Burke felt these responsibilities are covered in the lease agreement which
states if the tenant does not maintain the property, the owner will be responsible.
Commissioner Farr discussed Mr. Gaustad's comments regarding the good faith effort
his clients are making and whether they have reasonable tenants. He has seen the
property since it was originally [;iven a Use Permit. It was his opinion other problems are
still unresolved. The propert.,.! is not totally cleaned up. The fence is in a state of
disrepair. There are many weeds along the side of the house and no landscaping on the
site, which is not in keeping with the landscaping in the surrounding area. He was of the
opinion the property is run down and questioned how the property owner intends to find
reasonable tenants when the property is in such a state.
Mr. Gaustad advised there i~ extensive damage to the residence, both internal and
MINUTES OF PLANNING COiMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 5
MAY 26, 1993
external, and it would be difficult to complete the repairs while the tenant is still living at
the site. He felt it would not be in the best interest of the owner to initiate repairs at this
time.
Commissioner Farr expressed concerns with the owners making assurances when it has
taken them a long time to up!;Irade the property so they can keep reasonable tenants.
Mr. Gaustad apologized for not preparing a management plan as requested by the
Commission and felt the fault lies with him rather than his clients.
Chairman Burke discussed the Planning Commission's request for the applicant to
provide a more detailed plan for improvements to the outside of the structure and
surrounding area.
Commissioner Randolph recommended the matter of no animals allowed on the
property should be clarified in the agreement in addition to outlining specific
responsibilities related to the maintenance of the grounds and buildings.
Commissioner Long, explained he is friends with both doctors but his responsibilities as
a Commissioner lie beyond friendship and he is attempting to be as objective as possible.
He noted having a long discussion with Dr. Maurer concerning the situation. He has also
visited with several of the neighbors, spending considerable time with each of them in his
attempt to be objective. He telt it is a difficult situation because the property has had
tenants who did not respect the community, which was ignored for a long period of time
by the property owners. The :logs are no longer on the property and the neighborhood
is relatively quiet now. It is his hope that after the present tenants are evicted, the new
tenants will take care of the property and take pride in the neighborhood.
He expressed concern for the poor condition of the property. Even though some things
have been accomplished duri,'lg the past month, he felt it is not enough. He has been
advised the inside of the hou~se has been trashed so severely that, unless repairs are
completed, only someone who doesn't care will move in and then there will be a
continuation of the problem. He felt not enough has been done by the property owners
in that many items are in need of repair or replacement. He asked Dr. Maurer what he
intends to do on the property, the time frame for completion, and how can the City be
assured he will complete the r~ecessary work.
Dr. Sidney Maurer, residing at 10401 West Road, Redwood Valley, advised the time
frame for cleaning the inside of the house is contingent upon the occupants moving out
and the eviction proceedings. He felt it did not make sense to do any repairs to the
interior or exterior of the building until the tenants have moved. When the building is
vacant, they will begin repairs
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 6
MAY 26, 1993
Commissioner Long requested Dr. Maurer provide a specific list, as to his plans to make
the property and dwelling mo~e presentable.
Dr. Maurer advised it seemed stupid to make such a list, but he would be willing to do
it, "however stupid it might b~.".
Commissioner Long explained his request is not because he didn't trust him, but
because there are many people in the community who do not trust him.
Chairman Burke sympathized with Dr. Maurer concerning the difficulty of undertaking
repairs until the eviction process is complete.
Dr. Maurer responded to C¢)mmissioner Farr's comments concerning weeds on the
property and explained the weeds which exist between the two buildings are not on his
property but the adjacent property.
Commissioner Farr explained tall weeds still exist within the small fenced in area. He
based this on his observation earlier in the day.
Dr. Maurer advised he did not see any weeds in the area which Commissioner Farr
indicated. With regard to Chairman Burke's comment concerning the applicant being in
a debate with the City repeatedly for compliance, he advised he was notified last summer
by City employee Larry DeKnoblough of the Planning Department that there was a
camper parked in the yard. The motor in the camper was disabled at the time. He spoke
to the tenant about it and as soon as the vehicle was repaired, it was removed. He
received a call from Mr. DeKr~oblough thanking him for being cooperative.
Chairman Burke advised he was referring to the conditions of the original Use Permit
which took a long time for the ;~pplicant to meet. The conditions were not met and letters
were sent to Dr. Maurer by the City inquiring as to the reason for this delay.
Dr. Maurer advised that during this particular period of time, the building was vacant. It
seemed to him that since no one was living there, they did not have to proceed with
meeting the conditions of the Use Permit.
Chairman Burke advised the conditions must be met whether or not the building is
occupied.
Dr. Maurer felt his neighbors should have called him and notified him of the harassment.
He advised they have tried working with the tenants, and to some extent he has been
able to help them, but questioned what society should do with them.
Mr. Clifford Veals, tenant residing at 528 South School Street, advised he has not been
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 7
MAY 26, 1993
able to work on the property because it has been raining and he had a heart attack six
weeks ago. Last year he had hip surgery. He has talked to the property owners, trying
to resolve the situation, however no one informed him "of any problems until the Planning
Commission put the papers on his front yard". He explained he is on disability,, does not
have much money, and has lost custody of his three children, but he is trying to make the
place look good. He asked ':he Commission for a little common decency and for the
neighbors to talk to him abou;: their concerns. He denied threatening neighbors.
Mr. Bruce Crook, residing at 650 North Bush Street and owner of the business at 530
South School St., thanked th~.~ Commission for having the property at 528 South School
Street cleaned up and felt it w~s a step in the right direction. He noted that in the spring,
summer, and fall of 1992 he spoke with then Councilman McMichael and City staff about
the property. After repeated contact by these two individuals the property was cleaned
up and he expressed his appreciation to each of them in letters. Within six months he
was forced to write to the City requesting their help in policing the property again. The
culmination was the Public Hearing on the Revocation of the Use Permit.
He explained this property has been a serious problem since 1988. He asked that the
Commission require compliar~,ce of Section 9238(e) of City Code which relates to the
health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of a use permit.. The citizens around 528 South School Street have been
detrimentally affected because of the anxiety, tension, stress created by the loud yelling,
threatening behavior, frequem police visits, unsightly mess, and lack of maintenance of
the property. He explained the tenants congregate as a group in their front yard, drinking
and loudly using profanity, arid it frightens him. Arriving for work in the morning, the
neighbors stare at him and his employees' every movement and it makes them feel
uncomfortable. His neighbor.,~ and their acquaintances are frequently on their porch or
in the yard drinking beer when his clients come to his office and it makes him feel
embarrassed and ashamed. YVhen he leaves his office, his neighbors have threatened
bodily harm. These and other incidents have happened since the April 28 meeting, some
have been reported to Commission at an earlier meeting.
He felt his comfort has been destroyed by the appearance, sight, sounds, and continued
harassment of his neighbors which is extremely stressful. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission's first hearing he installed security gates at a cost of $2,000. He felt, with
regard to morals, the tenants are unfit to reside in a professional and business area. He
requested the Use Permit be revoked.
Chairman Burke discussed ~:he matter of the property owner and neighbors working
together to assist in the goals they want, mainly the eviction of the present tenants and
also working toward a future compatible tenants/owner/neighbor relationship.
Mr. Crook advised his goal is to have responsible management of the property. He felt
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 8
MAY 26, 1993
the only way to have responsible management is to use the property commercially. He
felt the property values of the surrounding areas have been detrimentally affected by the
deterioration of the property.
He explained that one owner was told by Mr. Trouette, who owns property at 524 South
School Street, about the conduct of the tenants on numerous occasions. He felt the
Commission and City staff hav,e problems getting things worked out. He has written Scott
Gaustad twice about his concerns and has not received an answer. He found it hard to
believe that Drs. Maurer and Waring were not aware of what was occurring on their
property.
He has seen the property cl~;aned up in the past two months, but no change by the
tenants. He discussed the ,Commission's purpose to enhance the lifestyles of the
community. Past action by the owners have shown a callous disregard for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hoppe advised the last revocation procedure the Commission dealt with
was with a commercial tenant. She questioned Mr. Crook concerning whether he would
want a fence or hedge if the property were to remain residential.
Mr. Crook felt, if the property remained residential, a fence would eventually have graffiti
on it, and didn't think a fence would be useful. If the property is to remain residential, he
will decide whether he wants 4:0 move his business.
Carlin Rouge, 1082 No. Oak Street, advised when the use was granted, the obligation
was on Dr. Maurer to see that it stayed up to standard. She felt it was incredible that he
did not know what was going (:)n because this is a small town. She is a landlord herself,
and pays attention to her property. She noted the property is in a central area where
anyone driving by can see it i,~, a dump. Her daughter works at Crook & Beversdorf and
she is aware of the fear they have experienced. She expressed a great deal of concern
for the safety of her daughter.
Tim Beversdorf, 921 Marlene Street, co-owner of the business adjacent on the south to
528 South School St., presenl::ed the Commission a petition signed by local businesses
and residents in the area. He discussed the revitalization of the downtown area with
regard to the combination of commercial and residential uses helping downtown
commerce. The people who signed the petition don't feel the property is helping
downtown commerce. He discussed the trend of the property, owners, and tenants. He
recapped the history of the pro3erty when the present owners purchased the property and
converted it from commercial to residential use without a permit five years ago. The
property owners are respectable doctors in the community and should have been aware
of the situation with their tenarlts. He noted problems with a similar character of tenants
over the past five years. He felt there is an overall lack of motivation on the part of the
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 9
MAY 26, 1993
response to the owners statement that there have been no complaints by the surrounding
businesses to the owners, he felt it is not his responsibility to worry about their tenants.
Nancy Lee, 425 Washoe, who rents commercial space at 524 South School Street, felt
that eviction of the current tena~3ts will not be good enough. She noted problems with the
previous tenants and felt the house will not bring in anyone who would pride themselves
in how they live. She explained that she has been accosted as well as some of her
employees and customers. When she sees her customers running from their cars or
running to the Ukiah Journal when they had to park in front of 528 South School Street,
it makes her wonder how much business she is loosing. She felt the property should be
commercial and that, with the current residential zoning, getting a new tenant to occupy
the house will not help.
Keith Trouette, residing at 3'~2 Jones Street, and owner of 524 South School Street
property, advised the Commission that he wrote a letter about his son being accosted by
the neighbors when he was cutting across Bruce Cook's property to get a rake. The male
adult who threatened to kill his son was intoxicated. He recalled talking to Sid Maurer in
August or September and told him in the strongest terms that the people occupying the
property are fouled mouthed and filthy, the property is a mess, and something should be
done about the situation. He aclvised Dr. Maurer to inform Dr. Waring of the situation and
take action. He felt the change of zoning from commercial to residential would have been
fine if the property owners could maintain the property adequately for residential use.
However, the residential use I~as not been compatible with the area. He would like the
owners to take the rocks out of the planters because the rocks have been thrown through
his windows often.
Diane Chiado, residing at 15C,0 Reisling Court, spoke on behalf of Dr. Richard Gardiner
and his wife. The Gardiners work at 518 South School Street and have had many
problems with the tenants of the subject property. They asked her to read their
statement: "To the Planning Commission, Unfortunately business calls me to San
Francisco on May 26 so I'm writing this statement. Names on a petition inadequately
convey the depth of passion ard universatality of opinion that the business and residential
tenants, and I do mean residential tenants as well as business, in the vicinity of 528
South School Street share. '['hat Use Permit 90-20 be revoked immediately. It is true
that there have been some window dressing improvements at 528 South School, and I
was somewhat surprised at t!'le intensity and unanimity of people's desire to see the
permit revoked and the situatian fixed permanently. Comments ranged from the permit
should never have been issued to I'm glad that something will finally be done. Why
hasn't anything been done bel::ore? And what allows this to continue? etc., etc. No only
did 100% of the folks who l alaproached, residences as well as businesses, gladly sign
the petition, and more than half of them thanked me for doing it. Not a single person said
that the owners or tenants should be given more time at all. In closing, I request that you
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 10
MAY 26, 1993
be responsive to the inhabitants of this wonderful section of downtown Ukiah. I request
that the Use Permit 90-20 be revoked now. Respectfully submitted, Richard Gardener,
M.D., 518 South School Street." Ms. Chiado presented a copy of the letter to the
Commission.
Mr. Scott Gaustad advised that Mr. Crook's letters did not ask him for a response, but
rather asked him to do something, which he has done. He explained he has responded
to every inquiry he received in a way he thought he was to respond. He summarized that
what he has been hearing from the audience is that they are telling the Commission a
residence in this location is injurious to the public health. He felt that is not what the
Commission can conclude, u~31ess: 1) they can say the area should be all commercial,
no residences, residences and commercial are not compatible, 2) they can determine
there are no tenants who co~ld live on this property and be responsible, or 3) they can
say his clients cannot assure responsible tenants occupy the property. He explained that
over 95% of Mr. Crook's complaints had to do with the problems of the tenants yelling,
drinking, and disturbing the neighborhood. Less than 5% had anything to do with the
condition of the property. He advised the problems with the tenants and harassment is
being rectified and the condition of the property will also be rectified. He noted the rent
is not subsidized for this property. He did not understand how people could draw the
conclusion that a residential tenant in this property would not work. He felt a responsible
tenant will work and his clients are working toward that goal.
Tim Beversdorf, felt the overall problem is the property owners' lack of motivation to
improve the property. When tr~e tenant spoke at this hearing, it was the perfect example
of that lack of motivation. The tenant mentioned his poor health condition but the
property owner did not step in and take care of the property, knowing the tenant could
not do it. He discussed there not being many vacancies along South School Street for
commercial uses and felt, if the property were improved, it could be rented commercially
with a good tenant. He discu~sed the property across the street, which has a residential
use on the second floor and commercial use on the ground floor, and has been greatly
improved due in part to the slipulation by the Commission that the property provide for
both residential and commercial uses.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:28 P.M.
Commissioner Hoppe questioned staff with regard to parking requirements should the
property be returned to commercial use, noting there are two off-street parking spaces.
She also inquired if a commercial use would need to be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Harris advised the building was used as a doctor's office previous to the residential
use. If the property were returned to commercial use, there is adequate space on the
property for parking, allowing one space for every 250 square feet of office area. A
commercial use would not corre before the Commission, unless they plan to renovate the
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 11
MAY'26, 1993
outside of the building or nave significant alterations which would require a Site
Development Permit. Based upon a business license, staff would be reviewing it for
compliance with parking and codes for commercial uses.
Commissioner Fart explained that to deny or revoke this Use Permit, the Commission
must find that residential use is not appropriate at that site. He felt the facts that the
original conditions were not rnet, and the property has been allowed to degrade to the
point of where it shouldn't be residential, constituted reasons for revoking the Use Permit.
He questioned staff if the Commission can revoke the Use Permit based on the fact that
they need to decide whether or not residential use is an appropriate use at that location.
Mr. Harris advised the Use F~ermit was for a single family residential use in a C-1 zone.
If the Commission finds that continued use as a single family residential unit is
detrimental, then the Commi.,~sion could revoke the Use Permit with findings.
Commissioner Farr, discussed certain conditions being put on the Use Permit so it
would not be detrimental to the health and safety of the community. He questioned staff
that if those conditions have wot been met to the satisfaction of the Commission, could
that be a basis to revoke this Use Permit.
Mr. Harris advised that the original condition of the fence has been met. He noted the
continued use as a single family residence seems to be the main problem as opposed
to the specific conditions which were applied to the original Use Permit. He explained,
even though it has taken a long time, those specific conditions have been met.
Commissioner Farr inquired if Standard Conditions 1-23 were part of the Use Permit.
Mr. Harris advised Standard Conditions 1-23 were not included in the specific motion to
approve the Use Permit.
Commission Menton inquired of staff if it would be possible to entertain the idea of
suspending the Use Permit for a specific period of time and then possibly reactivating it
at a later date, as opposed to revoking it or not revoking it. Once the tenants have been
evicted, the property owners would not be allowed to rent the property as a residence
until there are significant char~ges in the property. This would not necessarily deny the
use of residential in the futurE.,,.
Mr. Harris advised that type of condition would be appropriate. He noted the Code
provides the latitude for the Planning Commission to try to resolve the issue. If a
suspension to ensure the property maintenance is met, it would be a reasonable
approach.
Commissioner Randolph expressed concern with the property owners providing a
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 12
MAY 26, 1993
comprehensive management plan. He discussed revoking the current Use Permit, not
because of the question of fitness of the site for residential use, but as to whether there
is a management plan. He felt the issue is to look at a specific use under a specific
ownership. He was of the opinion the site may be fine for a residential use, perhaps in
the future under a different owner, however the Commission needs to look at this specific
case with the current ownership.
Chairman Burke advised there is no guarantee a commercial tenant would be better than
a residential tenant. The property owners are making strides towards cleaning the
property up, initiating the eviction notice, and perhaps being more aware of the
importance of obtaining good tenants for the property. He agreed with Commissioner
Menton's suggestion concerning suspending the Use Permit and not allowing renters until
the property is brought up to standard. However, he was opposed to revoking the Use
Permit at this time.
Commissioner Long suggested the property owner submit a plan which would be
acceptable to make the property meet the standards of the neighborhood.
Chairman Burke concurred with Commissioner Long.
Commissioner Farr inquireC of staff whether the Commission could add conditions to
the Use Permit if the Commission decides not to revoke it.
Mr. Harris stated additional conditions would not be added to the original Use Permit, but
they could be imposed relative to revocation. The Commission could work toward
insuring the Use Permit is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare.
Commissioner Hoppe felt the owners have met some of the conditions with the rental
agreement and stressed thE.', importance of the owners binding the tenants to the
agreement. She was concerned with the long-term maintenance of the project because
the doctors appear to be vague about exactly what they plan to do to the property. It was
her opinion that the design of the building is not set up for residential living. It is set up
so the tenants have almost nc) choice but to be living largely in the front yard, which is
virtually in the public street. Given the owners' long history of not very effective control
and the design of this building, it would be difficult to assure the long-term, satisfactory,
residential use with the present owners. If the Commission desires to impose additional
conditions concerning maintenance, they must be made very clear otherwise this type of
situation could continue for years.
A MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Randolph, seconded by Commissioner Farr,
to revoke Use Permit Application No. 90-20, as recommended by Staff, due to' the facts
the applicants have failed to consciously maintain and manage the property in accordance
with the original Use Permit, and its continuance would be detrimental to the health,
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 13
MAY 26, 1993
safety, and welfare of residents in the neighborhood, based on testimony received in the
Public Hearing.
Commissioner Farr explained there has been considerable discussion concerning the
tenants, however, it is the property owners responsibility. Unfortunately, with both
maintenance and compliance with permit conditions, the owners have not shown good
faith. He discussed avoiding a situation whereby the matter would come before the
Commission in the future. He felt what the Commission asked for, particularly a property
management plan. He felt resi¢tential use at the site, if mitigated properly, shoul,d be able
to co-exist with commercial activities. He briefly discussed other areas in the City where
commercial and residential uses co-exist.
Chairman Burke advised it is his understanding Staff explained the Commission could
add conditions to the Use Perr3it.
Mr. Harris advised the Commi,,;sion they can't modify the original conditions imposed on
the original Use Permit, however, the Commission can identify items which will determine
if its continued use would not t)e detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare.
Commissioner Menton suggE}sted suspending the Use Permit for a specific period of
time, making conditions for the reactivation of the Use Permit. This would not change the
original Use Permit.
Commissioner Randolph advised he did not think the Commission should consider
Commissioner Menton's recommendation at this hearing. He discussed the process of
revoking this Use Permit and then to entertain a new Use Permit with a new set of
conditions. He felt under a ge)od management plan, or a responsible owner, he would
not have a problem with that [)rocess. He noted he has been a defender of residential
uses and felt it important to plotect the housing stock, but by revoking this Use Permit,
it does not effect the City's housing stock.
Chairman Burke felt perhap:s the Commission did not make it clear to the property
owners what the Commission was requesting at the last meeting. He did not have a
problem with the lease agreement submitted with the addendum and felt the owners have
made a good faith effort to cor~ply with the Commission's request. He did not know how
there could be a guarantee that a commercial tenant would be any more cooperative than
a residential tenant.
Commissioner Long inquired if the Use Permit for residential use is not revoked, would
it preclude the use of that prcperty for commercial.
Mr. Harris advised the prope~y could be used for commercial purposes at any time.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 14
MAY 26, 1993
Commissioner Long inquired if the Commission could place conditions on the physical
plant to bring it up to standards for residential usage prior to renting it out again. He
discussed the option of allowing them to use the property for either commercial or
residential uses.
Commissioner Farr discussed how the Commission will insure proper mitigation of the
problems which have been presented in the public record.
Commissioner Long expressed concern with the specificity of items which must be done
prior to rental and some ass~rance that the property will be kept up after that.
Commissioner Hoppe commented on the way in which the owners have responded to
the Commission's questions ~t this public hearing. She felt a commercial tenant may not
be any better than a residential tenant. She explained that it will be a slow process for
compliance with every co~ldition the Commission requires concerning property
maintenance, because the applicants will resist and delay the process. She felt a more
satisfactory way to approach the matter is to revoke the permit and if the owners want
to apply for a new Use Permi'I for residential use, it should include a management plan.
The Commission must consider how people can live and work compatibly within the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Farr recommended an amendment to the motion which would indicate
the reasoning behind revokin!;I the permit to the effect that the conditions of the original
Use Permit have been found to be insufficient to ensure the public health and safety of
the surrounding area, given the experience of the residential use type and the problems
which have occurred.
Commissioner Randolph discussed Commissioner Farr's recommendation, noting it is
not the applicant's fault if the conditions are insufficient. He would like to show that under
the existing Use Permit, there has been a failure to consciously maintain and manage the
property as it was intended ir the original Use Permit.
Commissioner Farr stressed new problems have been brought to the Commission's
attention now, based on the property owners lack of maintenance and upkeep of the
property. He requested the maker of the motion to include in the motion something to
the effect that new problems have come out of this situation based on lack of
maintenance and property upkeep and those problems have not been mitigated.
Chairman Burke commented that it was his hope the record would reflect that.
Commissioner Randolph re. read his motion to revoke Use Permit 90-20, as filed by
Sidney Maurer, as recommended by staff, because of the applicant's failure to
consciously maintain and manage the property in accordance with the original Use
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 15
MAY 26, 1993
Permit, and that the Planning Commission has determine~:':tha[ the health, safety and
welfare of residents in the neighborhood is at risk.
Chairman Burke disagreecl with Commissioner
Commission has not made amy findings.
Randolph in that the Planning
Commissioner Hoppe disagreed with Commissioner Randolph's motion in that the
applicant has complied with tile conditions of the original Use Permit. She explained the
applicant has built an adequ~tte fence and they have paved the parking spaces.
Discussion followed concerning the original conditions of approval for the Use Permit
and whether or not the applicant has adequately met those conditions.
Mr. Harris recommended tha:t if there is an issue of the continued maintenance of the
fence, it should be put in the context of Section 9238(e) as a defined item, detrimental
to the health, safety, and wel:!are.
Commissioner Randolph restated his motion:
A MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Randolph, seconded by Commissioner Farr,
to revoke Use Permit 90-20, as filed by Sidney Maurer, based on findings in accordance
with Section 9238(e), that the use, or the continuance of the use, is or would be
detrimental to the health, satety, and welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood, based on testimony and evidence received in the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Menton explained there seems to be three problems facing this issue:
1) the tenants, 2) the context in which the property lies adjacent to other properties, and
3) the condition of the propely. He was in favor of trying to work out some type of
suspension of the Use Permit, however, since that is not a viable alternative, he referred
to Section 9238(e) and the testimony heard at the Public Hearing as well as the petition
submitted which represents a substantial segment of the population of the area, as well
as a unanimous opposition to the existing conditions and continuance of the use of the
property. He supported the motion.
Commissioner Hoppe felt that a combination of the design of the building and the poor
record of the owners, makes residential use unattainable on this site because of the
specific conditions. She supported the motion.
Commissioner Long agreed with Commissioner Farr's comments concerning the matter.
He was appreciative of insighls which he did not understand, and yet at the same time
was concerned with Commissioner Hoppe's comments regarding the fact that the
applicants have complied with the past requirements of the Planning Commission, even
though it has been slow. He wished to continue to advocate for the mixed .usage of
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 16
MAY 26, 1993
residential and commercial, and thus would reluctantly vote no.
Commissioner Fart felt the ~esponsibility rests solely with the property owners, not the
tenants, and that the owner.,; have not adequately complied with the conditions. He
supported the motion.
Chairman Burke expressed concern with the fact that 30 days ago the Commission
asked the property owners 1:o make an effort to rectify the existing situation on the
property and that the Commission would grant them another chance. Now, the
Commission is saying their efforts are not good enough. He felt the owners are making
a good faith effort with the eviction proceedings. He hoped the problems would be
cleared up, and expressed ol)position to the motion.
MOTION CARRIED by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECESSED: 9:05 P.M.
Commissioners Farr, Hoppe, Menton, and Randolph.
Commissioner Long and Chairman Burke.
None.
Commissioner Reid.
RECONVENED: 9:15 P.M.
Variance Application No. 93-09, as filed by the Evangelical Free Church, to Articlc
3, Section 3225(f) re.qardin~ si~n existing past the maximum allowed time, on
13rol3er[y located at 750 Yosemite Drive, Assessor's Parcel No. 179~060-53, zoned
R-2, Multiple Family Residential zoning district.
Associate Planner Noel Ibelio advised the applicant indicated to him earlier in the
evening they would like to continue this matter until the June 23, 1993 Planning
Commission meeting to allow "!hem time to resolve, with staff, a sign program for the site.
Consensus of the Commission was to grant a continuance of the Public Hearing for
Variance Application No. 93-9, as filed the Evangelical Free Church, to the June 23, 1993
meeting.
PROJECT REVIEW
Site Development Permit Application No. 93-08, as filed by the Evan(;elical Frcc
Church, to construct a 2,707 square foot addition of an elementary school
classroom/pre-school/day care facility, on property located at 750 Yosemite Drive,
Assessor's Parcel No. 179-(160-53, zoned R-2, Multiple Family Residential zonin~
district.
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 17
MAY 26, 1993
Item No. 6C
Date April 23, 1993
M EM O RAN DU M
DATE:
APRIL 23, 1993
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL F. HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SIDNEY MAURER ~~-~"'~-
USE PERMIT NO. 90-29
LOCATION: 528 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
At the April 14, 1993 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that a revocation Public
Hearing for Use Permit No. 90-29, be considered because of lack of compliance with
general provisions of Use Permits within the City. The Use Permit was granted in April,
1990 to allow a single family use within a C-1 zone. Although the provision of housing
in the downtown area meets a goal for redevelopment and the City's General Plan, the
specific location and residential activities have not been consistent with the commercial
neighborhood within which it is located. As noted by the attached letters, from adjacent
property owners and employees, and from correspondence from the City to the applicants
regarding completing conditions of approval, the public health and welfare of the
neighborhood is compromise¢t.
Staff has attempted to determine methods by which this use would be compatible in this
locale. We have been unsuccessful in identifying specific items which would not require
considerable on-going monitoring by the City or which should have already been
implemented by the property owner if compatibility were desired. In light of this fact, and
the apparent inability of the property owner to over see the use in a manner consistent
with the neighborhood, staff must recommend revocation. The revocation is based on
Ukiah City Code Section 923,~3(e) which indicates that use or continuance of the use
would be detrimental to the health and safety of persons working in the neighborhood.
Attachments:
1. Location map.
,,
Correspondence with applicant
.
Correspondence received by the City regarding the Use Permit.
4. Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of April 11, 1990 and May 8, 1991
5. Ukiah City Code Sectior~ 923~(e).
MU:PLANNINGffVlKFC
! I
I$0 '
. '~hool St.
59(
// /
/,£/ -
/
lO0'
O0
611
,517
""ar:2~n Er Lt/
OFFICERS:
BRUCE D. CROOK, ,JR. CPA
JON I::. TELSCHO~/. CPA
CROOK, TI~iiLSCHOW & ASSOCIATES, CPA's
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MEMBERS
AMI~RI(:AN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALIFC,RNIA SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PRIV,,~TE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STR~T
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
(707) 462-8688
January 5, 1989
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Attention: Larry DeKnoil)lough
Dear Larry:
It has been some tiz~]e since I spoke to you regarding the zoning
status of 528 So. Schoo~i. Street, Ukiah. In the past this parcel
has always been zoned C--1 (Light Commercial) and is now being used
as a R-3 (residencial).
As we discussed, sizLce our parcel and those from the entire
block are zoned C-1 you can imagine the problem we have with small
children in and out of c.ur parking lot. We have already come to
close to several acciderlts because of this. Complaints don't make
any difference so we would like to protest any appeal for change
of zoning which you sai~l the owner of the parcel would have to
apply for and then appeal signs would be posted in front of the
parcel.
So far we have not seen any such posting and are concerned
about the zoning problem imposed on the surrounding businesses,
especially our own.
Please call or write me at the phone or address below.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Diane D. Chiado
532 So. School St.
Ukiah, CA 95482
462-8688
BRUCE D. CROOK, JR. CPA
JON I::. TELSCHOW, CPA
CROOK, TELSCHOW & ASSOCIATES, CPA's
A PDOF"SSlONAL CORPORATION
MEMBERS
AM~glCAN INSTITUT~ O~ C~gTIPI~D PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALIFO~NIA SOCIETY O~ C~RTI~IED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PRIVATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA
Ap~[ 3, ~0
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STRI;Lml'
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95~182
(707) 462-8688
Michael F. Harris
Director of Planning
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, Ca 95482
RE: "Letter of Protest"
Parcel #002-271-11
Dear City of Ukiah:
We are submitting a Letter of Protest with respect to
Parcel #002-271-11 located at 528 South School Street, Ukiah,
regarding its applicat:i, on for rezoning from a C-1 parcel to a
R-1 parcel.
For many years now~ this entire block has been zoned light
commercial (C-l), inclt[ding the 528 So. School Street parcel.
We had no idea that the new owner of 528 So. School had applied
for construction pern~its to change his light commercial
building (formerly doct.or and attorney offices) into a single
family residence. As k.usiness owners and concerned citizens,
we would appreciate careful consideration regarding how
hazardous and inconvenic~nt a single family residential dwelling
is next to a busy light commercial building.
Our clients, especially elderly ones, come into our
parking lot at all hours and days of the week as do the owners
and staff members. There have been several incidents caused by
the parental neglect of the children of 528 So. School Street
being allowed to play in our parking lot, which is the oqly
access to the entrance of our building.
The following incid.~nts have already occurred repeatedly:
1. Toddlers and ~mall children found in bedtime attire
wondering around our doors, parking lot and sidewalks at all
hours.
2. Toddlers/small children playing around and on vehicles
of employees of our firm..
3. Toys/bikes fou~ld in entrance in parking lot causing
our vehicles to come to an abrupt halt in order not to run over
such items and damage t.he car, but causing near rear end
collision from vehicles ~raveling behind turning car.
·
City of Ukiah - Page 2
4. Toddler found in middle of parking lot entrance (not
sidewalk) and almost struck by one of our employees.
5. One of the parking space markers was tampered with and
caused severe tire damage to an employee vehicle.
6. Employee assisted employee of Daily Journal located
next door on opposite side of 528 parcel to get
toddlers/children off their busy business entrance where
children had been nearly hit by incoming vehicles upsetting
their cliental.
7. Damage d~ne to landscaping on business property by
digging and playing in plants, shrubs and parking lot.
For nearly a year the adults of the above dwelling on 528
South School Street hava been asked and warned repeatedly about
the damage, potential ~hild endangerment and hazardous to the
toddlers/children and to our staff and clients, especially to
those who are elderly with weak heart conditions possibly
· running over children and items of play equipment left on our
premises.
Unfortunately, the neglect of the children still persists.
We are sure that you can understand the difficult situation we
are faced with and why we must protest.any such application to
rezone parcel #002-271-11 from a C--l, which is compatible to
the surrounding light ~ommercial dwellings, to a R-l, which is
impossible to contend with and actually dangerous to any single
family dwelling with sm~ll children.
We respectfully protest the rezoning of 528 So. school
Street from a C-1 parcel to a R-1 parcel.
You can contact ou~ Mr. Bruce Crook,- Jr. for any questions
regarding the protest a~Dove.
,
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Crook,~ Jr.
CT&A/ddc
LAW OFFICES
BELL. MANNON AND LA CASSE
CHARLES R. BELL
CHARLES B. MANNON
LEONARD J. LA CASSE
April 4, 1990
SAVINGS BANK BUILDING
P. O. Box 419
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482-0419
TELEPHONE 701-468-9151
FAX 707-468-0576
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
Civic Center
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
Re: Use Permit Application No. 90-20
Sidney Maurer - 528 South School Street
Gentlemen:
This office represents Crook, Telsch°w & Associates, CPA's
and Bruce D. Crook, Sr., who lease and own the property
immediately adjacent to the Maurer property.
The basis for the objections are these:
1. The area has been zoned C-1 since 1964.
2. The surrounding properties are used for light
commercial purpos,~s. The Crook office, for example, and
other offices in the area, have much car traffic. If the
Maurer property i'~ changed into a residence, it puts
additional burden~ on the commercial properties surrounding
it. Those burden:~ include the introduction of children and
their toys and pl,~y yard into the commercial areas which
just are not comp.~tible with the light commercial aspects of
the neighborhood.
3. The building on the Maurer was originally built for a
dental office, and the property has been used for
non-residential p~lrposes almost from its inception until the
present time. Apt)roximately six months ago the property was
rented to.a family. Residential use and the light
industrial uses o:i~ the property are not compatible.
Yours very truly,
MANNON AND LaCASSE
Charles B. Mannon
CBM:gag
cc: Crook, Telsc?~.ow & Associates, CPA's
Bruce D. Crock, Sr.
300 SE UKI^H, CA 954E2 w' .^DMIN. 707/463-6200 w POLICE' 463-6242 [] FIRE 463-6274
September 5, 1990
Dr. S~dney Maurer
1040 West Road
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
RE: 528 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
USE PERMIT NO.~t~~
Dear Dr. Maurer:
In approving Use Permit No. 90-20 at 528 South School Street, the Planning
Commission required a fenc.~ td be constructed along the south property line.
The purpose of this fence was to provide a safe and enclosed play area for
children on the property.
This letter is to request ~ work schedule detail~ng beginning and completion
dates for construction of the fence. It is our intent that the Planning
Commission's conditions of approval be completed in a timely manner.
Should you have any questio~]s, please feel free to contact me at 463-6203.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL F. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
LWD :kr
PA2
.,/ 300 SE
/.
.;
:i
UKIAH, CA 9541~12 w ADMIN. ?07/463-6200 ~1 POLICE 463-6242 ~1 FIRE 463-6274
I~~r 7, 1990
Doctor Sidney Maurer
1040 West Road
Redwood Valley, California
95470
Dear Dr. Maurer:
In a letter dated Septem0er 5, 1990, you were notified of the need to
construct a fence along the south property line at 528 Sou~] School Street.
This was a condition of a[~proval of Use Permit No. 90-20. That letter also
requested a construction schedule for the project to be sent to this office.
Site inspection indicates no fence has been constructed nor has a work
schedule been provided to u~3. It is essential that this condition of approval
be completed in order to pr.~vent revocation of your Use Permit No. 90-20.
I urge you to respond to this letter by December 21, 1990, by providing the
requested work schedule. Should you have any further questions regarding this
letter, please contact this office at 463-6203 or come into the Civic Center,
300 Seminary Avenue.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL F. IUtRRIS
Planning Analyst
LWD:~
SPLAN
L MAURER
DAVID J. RAPPORT
I. ESTER J. MARSTON
LAW OI':FICE.~ OF
R~aU, ORT & 1VltmSTO~
AN ASSOCIATION
OF
SOLE PRACTITIONERS
February 21, 1991
200 Henry Streel
P.O. Box 488
Ukiah, Ca. 95482
" (707) 462-6846
Sidney Maurer, M.D.
1040 West Road
Redwood Valley, Cal'~ fornia 95470
RE: Use Permit No. 90-20, Compliance with Conditions of Approval
Dear Dr. Maurer:
The Planning Commission granted you a use permit for
residential use of a building located at 528 S. School Street on
April 11, 1990. At that time the Commission imposed a condition
on its approval of the use permit that you construct a fence
around the entire b,~ckyard of the property to secure the playing
area for 'small children.
Your voluntary compliance with this condition has been re-
quested in writing ~y the Planning Department on September 5, -
1990, December 7, 1!)90 and January o3, 1991.
To date, no plan for compliance with the condition has been
submitted to the Planning Department and no fence has been con-
structed as required.
On February 12,,. 1991, this matter was referred to me for en-
forcement.
PLEASE BE ADVISED that revocation proceedings will be in-
itiated with the City Planning Commission, if you have failed to
submit a work schedule for constructing the fence satisfactory to
the City Planning Department by March 8, 1991, and if the re-
quired fence is not constructed on or before April 11, 1991.
If you have an~ questions or wish to discuss this matter,
please feel free to contact me.
City Attorney
DJR/le ~
'cc: Larry Deknoblouqh, Planning Analyst .
300 SE~~'~VE., UKIAH, CA, 9E;482 . ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBUC SAF~ 463-6242/6274 ·
· F,*O< 11 707/463-6204 ·
September 4, 1992
Dr. Sidney Maurer
10401 West Road
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Dear Dr. Maurer:
This office is once again receiving complaints regarding property conditions
at 528 South School Street. Specific concerns include the use of a recreation
vehicle as an on-site rE~sidence, dismantled vehicles, inoperative appliances,
and debris and refuse sc~ttered around the property.
As you may be aware, tt~,e City of Ukiah and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency have
initiated a comprehensive and aggressive downtown revitalization project.
This project will provide for the infusion of approximately $4.7 million into
our downtown through building and property upgrades.
The success of this pro.gram will be in large part dependent upon individual
property owner participa~on and a recognition that pride and quality property
maintenance are civic re.~ponsibilities.
This letter is a request for your cooperation in assisting your community and
neighbors in improving Ukiah's downtown by removing any dismantled or
illegally parked vehicles and conducting a general clean-up and improved
maintenance program for 7our property.
While on-site conditions, such as tile parking and use of a recreational
vehicle as a living unit, the collection of inoperative and/or dismantled
vehicles, and the collection of refuse and debris, are infractions of the
Ukiah Municipal Code, the City of Ukiah would prefer to avoid regulatory
enforcement in favor of your recognition of personal civic responsibility. We
would greatly appreciate your voluntary cooperation in this matter.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to
contact me at ~63-6203 or come into the Civic Center at 300 Seminary Avenue.
Sincerely,
MiCHAEl, F. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Redevelopment Coordinator:' '
·
LWD:kr/Plan5
UKI^H. CA 954.8:! · ADMIN. 7071463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-624216274 ·
· FAX # 707/'t6:)-6204
September 24, 1992
Dr. Sidney Maurer
o
10401 West Road -
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Dear Dr. Maurer:
In my letter of September 4, 1992, I related to you concerns this office has
regarding property conditions existing at 528'South School Street. I also
attempted to make you awar.~ of the extensive downtown revitalization project
the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency is undertaking. It was my intent with that
letter to seek your coope:~ation in providing property improvements through
ownership pride and civic responsibility.
To (late, I have rece]ve.] no response lndJ. cating improvements
completed, nor have there been any improvements or general clean-up of the
property. While remaining ~:o seek your voluntary cooperation, it is my intent
with this second request to also inform you of the nature of the violations
existing on the property and the ramifications of your failure to comply.
Specific violations existing on the property which must be remediated are:
1. Uklah City Code Section 2460: Unauthorized occupancy of a trailer or
camper for living/sleeping quarters not within a trailer camp. This
violation could result in a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) per
day.
2. Ukiah City Code Sectio~a 4420: The unlawful accumulation of rubbish and
refuse on the site.
3. Unauthorized use of zhe site as a "Junk yard." Ukia~ City Code
Section 9304 defines a junk yard as the use of more than 100 square feet
of the site for the sf:orage of scrap materials, or the dismantling of
automobiles or other w~hicles or machinery, for a period of thirty (30)
days or more.
In addition, the current Use Permit No. 90-20 for 528 South School Street was
approved to establish a sing[e-family dwelling in a C-! zone. A sing]e-family
dwelling as defined by Ukiah City Code Section 9291 means a building designed
for, or used, to house not: more than one family including all necessary
employees of such family residing therein. Our observations indicate current
use of the subject property is by more than one family.
Dr. Sidney Maurer
September 24, 1992
Page 2
(
Due to the degree of violations existing on the property and the ]ack of
compliance with the apl,roved use permit, this office is providing you
thirty (30) days from tl~e date of this letter to complete the necessary
property improvements and comply with the single-family use approved for the
Use Permit. Should this ~equest fail to result in full compliance, the matter
will be referred to the City Attorney's office for revocation of the Use
Permit as well as any additional enforcement actions at his discretion.
Should you have any que..~tions regarding the intent of this letter, please
don't hesitate to comtact me immediately at 463-6203 or come into the Civic
Center at 300 Seminary Aw~:nue in Ukiah.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL F. HARRIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LarrY. De
Redevelopment Coordinator
LWD:kr
c: City Manager
Director of Comm. Dev.
City Attorney
R:Plan5/L Maurer 2
E C
April
'.,~,
O N O G R A'.p HI
A Place To Print in'MendoCino County
524 South Scho61 street
Ukiah, California. 95482
(707) 462-5764
-.
:.
City Of Ukiah
· ..
Seminary Avenue '
Ukiah, California
.
.
Regarding: 528 South School street
Dear City of Ukiah; ....... : ~
· fax (707) 462-1050
RECEIVED"
APR..2 1 1993 ..
,il'Y OF "''
Dept. of ~' "' '
~,ommun~ty Development ·
As a business owner in downtown Ukiah, I feel that the views on the revokation of thc usc permit for the
address of 528 South School Street.. _sh. ould be reviewed and/or revised by the City of Ukiah.
..
·
Econographics feels that the City of Ukiah should take note to the complaints that our customers have brought
forward to us regarding .the noise level, verbal use of profanity, the yard waste at 528 South School Street.
On rare occasions, our employees have been verbally accosted.
. .
I believe that if the City of Ukiah'i~ pushing for downtOwn revitalization, this is and will be an ongoing
problem that faces locally owned businesses residing in or wishing to reloca~ to the downtown area.
I also believe that there shoUld be co-existence between all neighbors (cormnercial, retail ~d or private
residences).· Being that our location is one (1) building north .of.the property in. question, and we have no
direct view of the occupied residence, unless we step outside. In all fairness to our neighbors surrounding our
building, we are a commercial print shop with loud equipment running tln'oughout the normal workday plus
.. at odd hours running overtime, perhaps though, because we are business, we have not had any complaints
from our business neighbOrs. . ,...
·
·
·
.
..
Reviewing the complaints: Prof,mity, animal noises, police action (consistently), cars coming
and going, children crying, garbage and yard waste in front yard.
.
·
There have been other complaints not mentioned herein, they have seemed to work themselves
out over the last 12 months.
Sincerely,
Nancy Lee
Econographics
Keith L. Trouette
312 Jones Street
Ukiah, Ca 95482
April 19, 1993
Larry W. DeKnoblough
Redevelopment Coordinator
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. DeknoblouGh:
ECEIVED:
1,993
I would appreciate your held in presenting
views to the Planning Commission r~gard~ng the April C°mr~unit.~'Development
28th hearing on revocation of Use Permit Applica%ion No.
90-20.
I am very much in favor of revoking the Use
Permit filed by Dr. Sidney Maurer for the single-family
dwelling located at 523 South School Street.
Repeated complaints to Dr. Maurer about his
tenants have brought no positive results. So, I have
given up on trying to ~vork things out between us.
I own the prope:rty adjacent to 528 on the north
side. My front buildin!~, at 524 South School Street, is
currently rented to a printing shop, Econographics.
The patrons of "::he business on my property are
subjected to the very "unbusiness like" mess next door.
"Dogpatch" comes to mind. Except that one would only
hope for the benign characters from DoGpatch. The people
who hang around 528 South School are not easy to ignore.
While you can avert your glance and not look at
the numerous cars, boats, motorcycles, garbage, etc.,
one can not ignore the profane language and verbal
assualts.
Vandalism and theft has increased around mv
property since the City allowed the use variance next
door.
I would be very grateful for your held in this
matter. -
Sincerely
Keith L. Trouette
,,
April 20, 1993
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Revocation of Use Permit
Application No. 90-20
....
~,~:~t'~, Deve!O~ment
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to take this opportunity to express my
support for the revocation of the use permit for 528 So. School
Street as a single family dwelling.
I am employed by Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs at
532 So. School Stre~t. Since 528 So. School Street has been
permitted to be use.~ as a single family dwelling the residents
have been a constant nuisance, and at times, a threat.
They are perpetually, verbally assaulting themselves and
their many visitors, at such decibels that everyone in our
office can hear them often from inside the building. Their
verbal assaults are not exclusively for their friends and
family either. The~z have also made verbal threats to myself
and my fellow co-workers.
There is also the issue of the children who are allowed to
play so close to the street and in our parking lot. Tall weeds
and debris make the children's fenced play area impossible for
them to play in. t?herefore, the children are in constant
danger from the traffic in our parking lot and School Street.
The use of this building as a residence is not a ludicrous
idea. However, the owners of the property do not seem to have
any concern about wt~at kind of tenants they have, nor the
appearance of their property. It is a ludicrous idea to think
the downtown area wi3.1 be "revitalized" with the eyesore at 528
So. School Street in the heart of the revitalized area.
Sincerely,
Julie K. Sawyer of
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
Michael F. Harris
Director of Planning
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
April 20, 1993
"~..~ i' ,..~!' \
de,O!. ,?.f !;,Ommunity Development
Dear Larry:
The residence at 528 South School Street should be zoned
as light commercial. ?he building is not suited as a residence
because of its commercial location. The tenants that now
occupy this building i%ave been very unsuitable people. The
property has been messy and unkempt. The arguing, yelling and
fighting has brought the police several times and has disrupted
businesses. The build:Lng should not be used as a residence of
any kind.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Knight of
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Commissioners:
April 20, 1993
~..'?:~t. ,....t' C~mmunit.v Development
I am an employee of Crook, Beversdorf & Associates. I
have worked with this firm for over five years at its present
location of 532 South School Street. During that period of
time I have been witness to a steady revitalization of School
Street with its retail and commercial buildings. From new
construction to the rehabilitation of stately Victorians, all
of us whose livelihoods are connected to the downtown area are
happy to see this rejuvenation.
In stark contrast to the above theme, is the case of our
neighbor located at 528 South School. What was originally a
professional office prior to 1989, was granted a use variance
(over our written objections to the planning commission) to
convert the proper~:y to R3 (residential rental). At that time
I felt that such a conversion was not in keeping with the
spirit of the downtown merchants redevelopment movement, and
after watching five plus years of deterioration to this
property, I am abs¢,lutely convinced the issuance of the use
permit was ill-advi~ied.
The owners of the property have continually attempted to
distance themselves from any responsibility as to the
property's condition and the character of the tenants who
occupy it. In essence, they operate with a slumlord mentality.
Our clients an~ ourselves are continually exposed to
verbal obscenities from the tenants, as well as having to look
at a yard which loDks to be from an episode of Sanford & Son.
We can only hope th,~ Planning Commission can and will take the
necessary action to turn this situation around.
I respectfully submit this letter to the Planning
Commission with the hope that a revocation of the use variance
at 528 South School Street will be carried out.
Sincerely,
Do
Cr°°k'~As~oc i a tes,
CPAs
April 20, 1993
Planning Commission of the
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Members of the Commission:
I am writing this letter to voice my concerns to revoke the
Use Permit No. 90-20, qi'ranted to the owner(s) of 528 S School
Street.
As a local business owner at 532 S School Street, I am often
embarrassed to have my clients walk up to our office and comment
about the mess they saw next door. I do not know whether my
business has been adversely effected dollarwise as the result of
being located next to that residence, however I do notice a
general discomfort among my clients and staff in doing business
at this location.
It is not just the trash around the yard, continuous garage
sale activities, or noisy pets, but also the indecency of the
tenants. They consisten-':ly are loud, use vulgar language, and at
some times have directed obscenities toward our staff.
Since the Use Permit was granted, their have been more than
one group of tenants, all of which appear to have been of the
same general character. And quite frankly, it is difficult to
recollect how many different groups of tenants have resided
there, since there has appeared to have been more than one family
residing there at vario'~s times. This certainly could not be
appropriate under the terms of the Use Permit.
I strongly feel that you must revoke the Use Permit at 528 S
School Street because it does not appear to be reasonably
appropriate or consistent with any downtown redevelopment plans.
Here you have a number of professional offices located throughout
this section of the redevelopment zone; a CPA firm, several
attorneys, a doctor, a financial consultant, a credit union, a
newspaper business and many others, all surrounding a what
appears to be "low-income" housing unit. It just does not seem
like a reasonable plan for revitalizing our downtown!
Sincerely,
Tim A. Beversdorf
BRUCE & JEAN CROOK
594 Park Blvd.
Ukiah, CA 95482
(462-4556)
April 20, 1993
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Uem. of Community Development
Re: Revocation of Use Permit Application No. 90-20
Re Mauer Property, 528 So. School St., Ukiah
Dear Members,
Our building, located at 532 So. School Street was
constructed in 1963, and since that time the area has been up
graded by the construction of the Ukiah Daily Journal building,
the building occupied by the Credit Union, the recent
construction of the Wc.ng building, and various dwellings north
of Wong's on both sides of the street; which have been
remodeled into business property.
The property at 528 so. School Street was originally a
dental office, and through the use of variances, was allowed to
become residential.
In certain instances, variances may be a useful tool, but
they should not be allowed to continue when the owners do not
comply with the terms of the variance.
It appears to us that it is incumbent upon the agency
which granted the variance to see that it is complied with. In
this case, it has beer~ ignored and no action taken to correct
it. As a result, this property has downgraded the surrounding
property.
We respectfully request that the original variance be
revoked and the property rezoned to C-1.
Sincerely,
· Crook & Jean S. Crook
[-' (C[PPCDtT
526 S. STATE STREET- P.O. BOX 1410
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
April 20, 1993
City of Ukiah
Planning Department
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
Attn: Michael Harris & Larry DeKnoblough
We are writing to you regarding the public hearing taking place on
April 28, 1993 and the proposed revocation of Use Permit
Application No.90-20 filed by Sidney Maurer. As a business located
in the immediate area, we support the use of properties in this
vicinity as C-l, Light Commercial.
Sincerely,
Ronald H. Houghton
Manager
RHH / gb
Laura Neilson
Assistant Manager
't
BRUCE D. CROOK, JR. CPA
TIM A. BEVERSDORF, CPA
DOUGLAS M. SOLIS, CPA
JULIE K. SAWYER, CPA
CROOK, BEVERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, CPAs
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALIF~,RNIA SOClE'f'¥ OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PRIV,,~,TE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA
April 20, 1993
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
UKIAH. CALIFORNIA 95482
(707) 462-8688
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Revocation of Use Permit
Application No. 90-20
Dear Commissioners:
RECEI ,./ED
/: PR 2 ]_ 1993
el'fY OF UKtAH
Dept. of Community Development
I would like to support the City Staff position that the
use permit granted to use the property at 528 So. School Street
as a single family dwelling be revoked.
Approximately a year or two before the use permit was
granted the owners c.f the property had converted the property
from a commercial use to residential use. During this time a
young woman with small children and her various boy friends
lived in the converted small office. This woman was unable to
carry on a conversation without using colorful vulgar language.
One of the young children was very energetic as young children
are and use to love to ride his tricycle up and down the
street. In addition, the child would ride his trike into our
parking lot, which has a slight incline, and then race down our
parking lot into the sidewalk. This was great fun for the
child, but extremely dangerous as we have people entering and
exiting the parking lot throughout the day. The child had
several near collisions with automobiles. Some of these
incidents were reportad to the mother who did not seem to care.
The commission in April 1992, over our objection, granted the
landowners request fDr a variance. Due to the timing, I was
unable to attend the meeting in early April. However, my wife
and my attorney spoke before the commissioners. The yard and
property were not ke]~t up during the time this woman lived
there. She'moved out and we were relieved.
The city staff started to revoke the use permit at
sometime in 1991, and since our original objection had been
rejected, I was not hopeful that the commissioners would
listen to our concer]~s. Accordingly, I ignored .the hearing.
The commissioners did not revoke the use permit.
Since that time the situation has deteriorated. During
August of 1992 the property looked like a garbage dump and was
occupied by numerous people in the small house. There was one
fellow who slept and spent a substantial time in his car, one
group living in a motor home, and yet others sleeping in a
tent.
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
Page 2
In August I discussed the situation with city staff and
gave them some pictures of the property. The result was a
letter to Dr. Maurer. I kept in contact with staff and the
property appeared to be inhabited by no more than two families.
The tent, sleeping ca~13, camper, motorhome and most of the
debris were cleaned
During the spring, summer and fall an occupant would bring
in old lawn mowers, ii3ototillers and other small engines and
attempt to get them .~n running condition and then attempt to
sell them. During this repair process, the noise of howling
and grinding engines ~[s unbearable to concentrate on our work,
even behind closed doors. This is an unprofessional
disturbance both visually and auditorily to our clients.
There have been various dogs, puppies and cats which have
been left crying and b.~rking for hours on end. The police have
been called by others about this problem and the callers would
refuse to press charges. I have told several of the police
officers the next time they are at the house and need someone
to press charges, just come over and I will oblige.
The people owned a large cockatoo bird and they would let
it loose in the yard. I presume it couldn't fly as it always
stayed in the bushes olc on the fence. It would make more noise
than the dogs, a hideo~']s screech.
There have been cars in a state of repair for weeks on
end. These cars hav.~ been up on blocks, with flat tires and
some were not driven for months on end. They would be moved
from one spot to anoth~r on the property.
There has been ~arbage, both household and furniture
scattered over the pr~Dperty for most of the time during the
past few years.
After the remova~ of the motorhome, there came the boats,
first one, then two ~nd again one. This boat has had a for
sale sign on it at v~rious times since it was brought to the
property. The fellow who slept in the car also came back
during November. Starting again in November there have been as
many as four vehicles in the yard and in front of the house,
when I leave in the ~vening and again in the morning when I
return.
As of the writin~ of the letter, the property has been
pretty well cleaned up. Only old tires, yard trimmings,
furniture, numerous garbage cans and a screen door litter the
property. It appears there is a pile of garbage behind the
fence.
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
Page 3
I believe it has been kept in this better state as I have
been informed that the occupants are attempting to regain
custody of their children who have apparently been removed from
their custody by the court.
I could go on and on but you have the idea. The property
has not only been used as a single family residence, but as;
1. a multiple family residence,
2. a small engine repair shop,
3. an auto repair shop,
4. a boat repair shop,
5. a boat sales yard,
6. a motor ho~e park,
7. a place where multiple pets were kept, dogs,
cats, exotic bird and rabbits,
8. a junk yar~,
9. a place for foul mouthed people to congregate
and harass neighbors and passersby.
It is time that you require the landlords to return the
property to the commercial use for which it was purchased.
As I mentioned in my letter to Larry Deknoblough dated
March 16, 1993, our clients and the community deserve better
and we can not continue to operate next to the filth, both in
language and sight. We beg the commissioners to uphold their
duty and revoke this ~urrent use permit.
Thank you,
Bruce D. Crook, Jr.
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
CHARLES B. MANNON
SAVINC~s BANK BUILOING
POST OFFICE BOx 419
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
Planning Commission
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
U~iah, California 95482
R=-: Revocation of Use Permit Application
No. 90-20 (Sidney Maurer)
Gentlemen:
PZease put me on record as being in favor
of revocation of the Use Permit
Application above noted. The use of the
property as a single family dwelling is
i~consistent with the commercial uses in
t?ie area. Furthermore, the tenants over
t~e last several years have maintained the
p~operty in such deplorable condition that
it is a detriment to the adjoining
property owners.
Yours very truly,
CHARLES B. MANNON
CBH: gag
RECEIVED
APR 2 2 1993
Cl'l",.' ui: oKiAH
Dept. of Community Development
RECEI't/ED
APR 2 1 '/993
Oep[. of Community Deve!opment
Mail: 275 Ho.',pital Drive · Ukiah, California 95482 · 707 462-3'1 'I '1
April 21, 1993
Mr. Michael Harris
Director of Planning
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Harris:
ECE/vED
;i'.. i 'j'Y ('ii..-. ~ , ,'. , ~ . ,.
,-
''Dept. of Communit,~
-DeVelopment
This letter is in regards to the building located at 528 S. School St. I have several
concerns regarding the occupants of this building. One is for the businesses located in
the surrounding area. In my line of business, I frequent both Econographics and the
Ukiah Daily Journal on a regular basis. This building is between the two and presents
both an eyesore and a negativ9 image for our downtown area. The police are there
quite frequently and there is m.~ch yelling and fighting. I'm not sure what the specific
plans are for our downtown, blt I sense a definite pride and rejuvenation that should be
fostered.
On a personal note, I recently moved across the street to 519 S. School Street- and
quite frankly safety is a concern. As I mentioned previously, there is yelling and fighting
and frequent visits by the police. There are people constantly coming and going --
making one wonder what exactly goes on there.
I know this is of great concern f3r many of our local businesses, so my purpose for
writing is to support them in this effort.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Lisa S. Walker
Community Relations
Locations: 2 ~5 Hospital Drive e '1 '120 South Dora Street
A member of Aalvenhst Health System/West
- -
ON A MOTION bY Commissioner Farr, seconded by Commissioner bl,~..;r~.e, it was
carried by the following roll call vote to approve the PlannJ:.~ Commission
Minutes of March 28, 1990, as amended:
AYES: Commissioners Fart, Malone, Svendsen, and Chairman McMichael.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: CommisSioners Dickey, Reid, and Sheehy.
ABSTAIN: None.
APPEAL PROCESS
Chairman McMichael .reviewed the appeal process.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7A. Use Permit Applicat:ion No.,90~20, '~s filed by Sidney blaurer, to establish
a single-family re:~idence at 528 So. School Street, zoned C-l, Light
Commercial District~
Planning Assistant Yarbrough explained that the building at 528 So. School
Street had recently been converted to a residential use and that this parcel
is zoned C-1. She noted that a use permit was required for residential uses
in the C-! zone. Ms. Yarbrough advised that the Commission had been provided
with letters from the .~dJacent property owner indicating concern for the
safety of the children residing at this location due to the heavy traffic in
this area. She stated ~:hat based on the lan~ use issue, Staff recommended
approval of Use Permit AFplication No. 90-20, subject to the conditions that a
fence be constructed arot~nd the entire backyard, to secure the playing area for
small children, and tha: a driveway and parking area for two vehicles be
paved.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 8:40 P.M.
Sidney Maurer, applicant, advised that there is no. demand for commercial
property in the downtown area, but that low-income housing is in demand, tie
noted that when this location was used as a pediatric medical office, many
children were present on this property, lie noted that the children who reside
at this location are not at home during working hours and that they had
requested the adjacent property owner, Mr. Crook, to allow them to fence a
portion of the area to provide safety for the children. Dr. Maurer indicated
that Mr. Crook responded negatively to this request and that a complaint of a
Code violation for a residential use in a C-! zone did not occur until
Mr. Crook was interested in purchasing the property.
Chairman McMichael asked Dr. Maurer if he had any objections to the
recommended conditions cf approval. Dr. Maurer indicated that he had no
objections.
Charles Mannon, P. O. Box 419, Ukiah, advised that he represented the adjacent
property owner, Mr. Crook. He discussed the history of the property, noting
MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING O)MMISSION
?AGE 6 -- ~0 --
APR1L 11, 1990
that it had been commercially utilized since it was built, a[,d expressed
concern that the property had been rezoned for residential use.
William Ware, 367 No. State Street, stated that he co-owned ~he subject
property with Dr. Maurer. He noted that there is no demand for commercial
property in the downtown area, but there is a great demand for housing in the
community, lie advised that they had offered to fence off the property several
years ago, but Mr. Crook ~::efused.
Cynthia Crook, 650 No. Bu~h Street, noted that they were the adjacent property
owners and reaffirmed the contents of the April 3, 1990 letter regarding child
endangerment. Ms. Crook felt that children living on the property, was more
dangerous than children being accompanied into a pediatric medical office.
She noted that the business is also open on Saturdays, not just during the
week.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 8:50 P.M.
Commissioner Malone noted that this application was not for a zone change, but
for a use permit to estat~.lish a residential use in a C-1 zone. He also felt
that the recommended conditions would mitigate the child safety issues.
Discussion followed.
ON A MOTION by Commissior~er Malone, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, it was
carried by the following roll call vote to approve Use Permit Application
No. 90-20, Sidney Maurer, to establish a' single-family residence ~n a C-1 zone
located at 528 So. School Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. The entire backyarci be fenced to secure the playing area for small
children.
2. The driveway and parking area for two vehicles be paved.
AYES: Commissioners ~'arr, Malone, Svendsen, and Chairman McMichael.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: .Commissioners Dickey, Reid, and Sheehy.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman McMichael reite:~:ated that the subject application was not a zone
change, but a use permit for a permitted use in this particular zone.
7B. Variance Applicatiom No. 90-26, as filed by Gary Nix and John Bogner, for
an exemption from the special reports required for construction in tile
R-l-II-2, Single-Family tt~llside zone, to construct a small addition to an
existing dwelll~g lc~cated at 280 llighland Avenue.
7C. Use Permit ApplicatLon No. 90-27, as filed by Gary Nix and John Bogner,
to construct a smal. 1 addition to an existing dwelli~ located at
!
280 tlighiand Avenue,. zoned R-I-II-2, Single-Family lli].lside District.
Chairman McMichael not ~d that a letter from Scherf and Rau, dated
March 28, 1990, had bee~ provided to the Commission in this matter and
referred the matter to Slaff.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PAGE 7
APRIL 11, 1990
;
construction, be approved by the Director of Community Development and
implemented by proper~:y owner, developer, or contractor.
19. Erosion control seeding be done on slopes of 15% or greater prior to
commencement of on-si~:e construction.
20. Ail grading be performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
Chapter 70. '
21. A specific grading plan for Lot Nos. 5 and 6 to assure that unstable
earth conditions will not result, be submitted prior to issuance of any
building permits or s~:te construction within the project boundaries.
22. Should archaeological materials be discovered during development, all
activity shall be tenporarily halted in the vicinity of the find and a
qualified archaeologist will be retained to evaluate the find and to
recommend mitigation ilrocedures, if necessary.
23. Tree removal shall oc(.ur only as illustrated on the Development Map
24. Foundations for Lots z., 5, and 6 be engineered foundations.
25. Cut banks on Lots 4, _~,' and 6, are to be supported by permanent retaining
walls.
26. Roof run-off water from new buildings shall be collected from downdrains
in a rainwater leade~ and directed to a storm drain structure. Roof
runoff shall not be allowed to freely flow out of downdrains across the
building pads.
27. If the proposed construction is modified or resited, or it is found
during any grading, cut, fill, or construction operation, that the
subsurface conditions differ from those encountered at the test pit
locations, as shown in the geological/geotechnical evaluation by
Charles VanAlsteJn, the author shall review the new information or
changed conditions tc determine if his conclusions or recommendations
must be modified.
28. All regulations not st,ecified herein shall be as prescribed in the Ukiah
City Code.
29. During construction, a drainage plan be provided for each lot to be
implemented during daily grading activities.
30. The name of the street shall be Myska Place.
31. That the entire tentative map be noted to read that it is a PD zone.
AYES: Commissioners Hoppe, Long, Sandelin, and Chairman Dickey.
NOES: Commissioners Farr and Sheehy.
ABSENT: Commissioner Reid.
ABSTAIN: None.
B. Revocation of Use Pern, it No .,#~. 20.,~Sidney Maurer, due to non-compliancP
with conditions of a|,proval to establish a single-family dwellin~ a~
528 South School Street, zoned C-l, Light Commercial District. --
Planning Assistant Yarbrough advised that on April 11, 1990, the applicant
received a use permit to convert the subject building to a residential use.
The building was at that time being used as a single family residence and is
presently in the process of being reoccupied as a residential building. ~'~en
the Planning Commission approved the use permit it was subject to two
conditions of approval; 1) ~hat the driveway be paved for on-site parking, and
2) because the entire are~ is zoned commercially, that the rear vard be
secured by a fence. She advised that Staff has had a number of telep~one and
counter discussions with the applicant and has tried to work to gain the
cooperation of the applic~nt in complying with the Planning Commission's
conditions of approval. St, nff does not feel that the applicant has complied
Minutes of the Ukiah Planni~.g Commission
Page 5
May 8, 1991
with the conditions as intended by the Planning Commission and are
recommending that the use permit be revoked unless the applicant can present
some good cause. She distributed photographs of the property taken this week.
She also noted the site plan used in discussions with the applicant. She
noted that the applicant paved an area to the front of the building which is
not what was shown on his sJ. te plan which showed the parking to the rear of
the building. Further, t[~e security fence at the rear of the yard is only
three feet in height.
Discussion followed concer[.~ing the location of the fence.
Public Hearing Opened - 8:cl p.m.
Sid Maurer, Redwood Valley, advised that he has had considerable
misunderstandings with thE~ Staff. He noted that the site plan which was
circulated was the map drawn to indicate, as per instructions, what the site
appeared like before the Planning Commission met. Per the use permit, it
indicated that the entire back yard was to be fenced. It is fenced. He
stated Staff expanded what: the Planning Commission had indicated in their
approval of the use permit. The parking:area was alreadY paved. He indicated
that they have more than ample parking. Staff advised him that they would not
have approved the parking spaces that close to the sidewalk. However, when he
parks in the driveway the back of his car is eight feet from the sidewalk
which is more room than mat~y other driveways in town. He feels that they have
fulfilled the Planning Commission's conditions.
Discussion followed concerning the height of the fence.
William Werring, 1961 Antler Road, indicated that he is part owner of the
property and apologized fc.r the delay in completing the project. He noted
that the intent was to fence the yard so that the children would not be able
to get into the street at~d the fence they built is more titan adequate to
secure toddlers. The back)'ard is entirely enclosed at this time so there is
no need for a fence along t:~e adjacent property line.
Public Hearing Closed - 8:4~ p.m.
Discussion followed concerning tile site plan, the commercial uses surrounding
this parcel, the fence height and concern for the children, alternatives to
revocation, the history of Staff and the City Attorney in trying to get the
applicant to comply, and th.~ parking requirements.
ON A MOTION by Commissioner Hoppe, seconded by Commissioner Farr, it was
carried by the following roll call vote to revoke Use Permit No. 90-20,
effective 30 days from today, if the applicant fails to heighten the existing
fence to four feet.
AYES: Commissioners Farr, [{oppe, Long, Sandelin, Sheehy, and Chairman Dickey.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Reid.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Revi. sion to Use Permit No. 90-58, Patrick Dug~an, establishin8 a 45-seat
restaurant at 801 Nort~ State Street, zoned C-2, Highway Commercial and
Restricted Industrial I~istrict.
Minutes of the Ukiah Plannir.g Commission
Page 6
May 8, 1991
§9235
A)
Be
C.
§9238
established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 793, §2,
adopted 1982; amd. by Ord. 880, §3, adopted 1988)
Pursuant to §9262, the City Council shall set a date for public hearing and shall
give such notice as is required by law. Notice shall also be given to the
Planning Commission of such appeal and the Planning Commission shall submit
a written report to thi~ City Council within ten (10) days prior to the hearing
date, setting forth the reasons for the action taken by the Commission, The
Planning Commission 'nay be represented at the hearing by one or more of its
members.
The City Council shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the filing of
such appeal, and may affirm, reverse or modify the determination of the
Planning Commission and may itself issue such variance. (Ord. 793, §2,
adopted 1982)
§9236' GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A.
Any use permit or variance which by its terms is made conditional on the
occurrence or nonoccu'rence of a stated act, event or happening shall upon the
failure of such conditions terminate without any further action of the granting
body, and shall thereafIer be null and void. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982)
§9237: TERMINATION OF USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE GRANTED FOR A
TERM PERIOD: Any use permit or variance which by its terms is granted
only for a certain term period, shall terminate without any further action of the granting
body upon the expiration of ~;uch stated term period, and shall thereafter be null and
void. (Ord. 793, §2, adopted 1982)
§9238: REVOCATION Ot' USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE: Any use permit or
variance, whether heretofore issued under the terms of any other ordinance
or which has been granted under the terms of this Chapter, may be revoked in the
manner provided for in §9239 for any of the following reasons:
A,
If construction associated with such use permit or Variance has not commenced
within one year of permit issuance. Commenced being defined as issuance of a
building permit by the Euilding Inspector.
a.
At any time if any of the terms or conditions of such use permit or variance are
violated. A declared intent to refuse to comply with such terms or conditions
shall be deemed to be .3 violation.
9151
§9238
Ce
D.
E.
{}9239
Any time if the use of such use permit or variance constitutes or will constitute
a violation of any law or ordinance.
Any time if the use of such use permit or variance ceases for a continuous
period of six (6) mon"~:hs; provided, however, that revocation proceedings on this
ground must be commenced after such use has ceased for six (6) consecutive
months and while the cessation continues.
At any time if the us~. or continuance of the use of such use permit or variance
is or would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general
welfare of persons r~siding or working in the neighborhood of such use, or
injurious or detriment~al to property and improvements in the neighborhood, or
against the general welfare of the residents of the City. In taking action under
this subsection due consideration shall be given to the extent of any change of
position in reliance upon the use permit or variance, the duration of existence of
such use permit or variance, the value of improvements, if any, made
thereunder, any chancje since the time of issuance in character of the area for
which such use permit or variance has been issued, and similar facts. Such
consideration shall be given such weight as the hearing body may determine to
be appropriate under the circumstances. (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982)
{}9239: HEARING ON PROPOSED REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT OR
VARIANCE: The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on all proposed
use permit or variance revocations. The notice procedure as required by {}9262 of
Article 20 of this Chapter shall be given in case of such hearing for revocation. In the
event that the Planning Commission finds that the use permit or variance is subject to
revocation pursuant to {}9238 it may, revoke the same. (Ord. 793, {}2, adopted 1982)
9152
IT~.,.~ NO.
6A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 21, 1993
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL F. HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT NO. 90-20, MAURER ~
At your last meeting, April 28, the Planning Commission considered and continued for 30
days revocation of the subject use permit. Several items, as noted in the minutes, were
to be completed by the applicant and a list of complaints occurring during the month was
to be compiled.
The draft minutes were just finalized today and thus the applicant has not had an
opportunity to comply with each issue. We have observed that some clean up of the
property has taken place. Staff and the applicant have been unsuccessful in making
connections to know further what plans he has in mind for the property.
Staff has not received any new written complaints, though one incidence of harassment
was noted in a telephone conversation regarding the overall situation.
Staff will present at the meeti~3g any new information from the Police Department as well
as any specific documentation we can secure from the applicant. A specific
recommendation will be pres,gnted orally at the meeting.
BRUCE D. CROOK. JR. CPA
TIM A. BEVERSDORF. CPA
DOUGLAS M. SOLIS, CPA
JULIE K. SAWYER, CPA
CROOK, BEVERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, CPAs
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AMEF':ICAN INSTITUTE: OF C='RTIFIEO PUSt.lC ACCOUNTANTS
CALI-"ORNIA SOCI~'I'~' OF CERTIFIED PUBI..IC ACCOUNTANTS
PRIWATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA
April 30, 1993
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
UKIAH. CALIFORNIA 95482
(707) 462-8688
Scott G. Gaustad
Brigham & Gaustad
387 North State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Gaustad:
This morning 8AM, I was verbally accosted and the
residence at 528 So~:.th School Street threatened to destroy my
camera for taking pictures from the sidewalk of the property at
528 South School Stz'eet. After receiving the threats, I
immediately called the police and they arrived a few minutes
later.
This incident ~.s being conveyed to you as I believe you
stated at the Plannir~g Commission meeting that if there was any
further problem, the tenants would be removed.
Sincerely,
BDC,Jr/ddc
cc: Michael Harris
Director of Planning
Bruce D. Crook, Jr.
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
ECEiVED
.:,~1'. of ~;n;i~mur~Lty Development
BRUCE D. CROOK. JR. CPA
TIM A. BEVERSDORF. CPA
DOUGLAS M. SC)LIS. CPA
JULIE K. SAWYER, CPA
CROOK, BEVERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, CPAs
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ANEF~:ICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALI:'ORNIA SOCIETY OF CEJR'T'IFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PRI"'ATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION OF THE AICPA
April 29, 1993
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
UKIAH. CALIFORNIA 95482
(707) 462-8688
Scott G. Gaustad
Brigham & Gaustad
387 North State St:'eet
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Gaustad:
On April 28, 1993 Laura Neilson, the Assistant Manager at
the Mendo Lake Credit Union informed me that she had talked
with Dr. Waring on about April 15, 1993. He stated to her that'.
if they had any m~re problems with the tenants, at 528 South
School Street, that the tenants would be gone. Laura stated
that upon leaving ~ bank meeting and entering the parking lot
across the street from 528 So. School about 9:00PM on
Wednesday, April 21, 1993 she observed two police cars in front
of 528 South School Street and the police were talking to the
residents. The tal:~ turned into shouting and she plainly heard
a policeman say to ~:he woman who occupied the dwelling that she
knows there is a :~estraining order to keep her away from the
property and she better go home. Laura said she left about
9:20PM and the police were still there.
This incident is being conveyed to you as I believe you
stated at the Plann:_ng Commission meeting that if there was any
further problem, t]~e tenants would be removed. Since this had
been previously con~reyed to Laura Neilson and, she is unwilling
to get directly involved, I am informing you of a continuing
problem that should be corrected.
Please honor the statements
attributed to Dr. Waring.
of yourself and those
E (".:-,_ !\/E D
Sincerely,
:./ ~,j ! -../~ ,. ..
t)~pt, of Community Development
BDC,Jr./sk
Bruce D. Crook, Jr.,
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
cc: Michael Harris
Director of Planning
THOMAS S. BRIGHAM
G. SCOTF GAUSTAD
KATHY LOHR
LEGAL ASSISTANT
BRIGHAM & GAUSTAD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORY THEATRE PLAZA
387 NORTH STATE STREET, SUITE 100
POST OFFICE BOX 358
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
TELEPHONE
707-463-1429
Hand delivery
Michael Harris
Director of Planning
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Lane
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: 528 S. School St.
Ukiah, CA
May 24, 1993
._ r_IVED
~",,'i/-\"r' 2, 5 1993
-'; :' ;...~' Ui',,iAh
v,~pL ot Community Development
Dear Mr. Harris:
Enclosed for your review and the review of the commissioners is a
form rental agreement my client intends to utilize with new tenants
for the subject property. If there are additions you would
recommend be included, please let me know.
Regarding the fence oit the southern boundary of the property, it is
my understanding that. Mr. Crook is not all that interested in a
fence between the properties. Instead, we propose some sort of
landscaping between tire properties to delineate approximately where
the boundary line lies. Please advise if that would meet with your
approval.
Scott Gaustad
GSG:jw
Enclosure
cc: Russian River Pistachios
11tls IS IH1 ENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BltlOItlG AGREEMEN1 -- I:tEAD Ir C:AnEFUI.t.¥.
Ct, LIFORNIA AS.~;(X:IATION OF FIEALI'OFIS ~ ICAI11 S TAI'IDAFil)
U :kiah , Calilornia __ t9
Russian River Pistachios, Inc. ,Landlord. and
,_'re_nant, a~gre_e as Iollows:
Schoo£ St.,
1. PROPERTY: I.andlord rents Io Tenant and "'enanl bites Irom Landlord Ihe "premises" described as: 5 2 8 $.
Uk £ a h j CA . Invenlory of personal properly, if any, Io be atlached.
2. TERM: The lerm shall commence on ,__ 19 _, and shall continue Irom monlh Io monlh. This renlal agreemenl
may be lerminaled al any lime by eilher parly by giving wrillen nolice 30 days in advance.
3. RENT: Tenanl agrees Io pay $ __ __ rent per monlh, payable in advance, on Ihe.,, day ol each monlh and
$ representing proraled. ,hi lrom ,19__ Io ,19__
4. LATE CHARGE: Tenanl acknowledges thai ale paymenl of renf may cause Landlord to incur cosls and expenses, Ihe exact amounl of such cosls
being exlremely difficull and impractical Io Iix Such cosls may include, bul are nol limiled to, processing and accounting expenses, lale charges thai
may be imposed on Landlord by lerms ol an~, loan secured by Ihe property, cosls Ior addilional allempls Io collecl rent, and preparalion of notices.
Therelore, if any inslallment of renl due Irom Tenanl is nol received by Landlord wilhin __ calendar days alter dale due, Tenant shall pay to
Landlord an additional sum ol $ as a lale charge which shall be deemed additional renl. The Padies agree Ihal Ihis lale
charge represenls a fair and reasonable eslir hale of Ihe cosls thai Landlord may incur by reason ol Tenanl's lale paymenls. Acceplance of any lale
charge shall not conslilule a waiver ol Tenant's delaull with respecl Io Ihe pasl due amounl, or prevenl Landlord horn exercising any other righls and
remedies under Ihis agreemenl, and as pro,,'ided by law.
5. PAYMENT: The renl shall be paid al __
6. SECURITY DEPOSIT: $ __ as a securily deposit has been received. Landlord may use fherelrom such amounts as are
reasonably necessary Io remedy Tenant's d.~faull in Ihe paymenl ol renl, Io repair damages caused by Tenanl, or by a guesl or a licensee ol Ihe
Tenanl, Io clean Ihe premises, il necessary, [ pon lerminalion ol lenancy~ and Io replace or relurn personal properly or appudenances exclusive of
ordinary wear and lear. If used toward renl Ol damages during Ihe lerm ol tenancy, Tenanl agrees lo reinslale said Iolal security deposil upon live
days wrillen nolice delivered Io,Tenanl in per ~on or by mail. No laler Ihan Iwo weeks after the Tenanl has vacaled Ihe premises, the Landlord shall
Iurnish lhe Tenanl wilh an itemized wrillen sla lement of Ihe basis lot, and Ihe amounl ol, any securily received and lhe disposilion ol Ihe security and
shall relurn any remaining podion of Ihe sec.rily !o Ihe Tenanl.
7. UTILITIES: Tenant agrees to pay lot all ulilili 9s and services based upon occupancy of the premises and the Iollowing charges
except which shall be paid tot by Landlord.
CONDITION: Tenanl has examined Ihe pre nises and all lurnilure, lurnishings and appliances if any, and lixlures including smoke detector(s)
conlained Iherein, and accepls the same as :)eing clean, and in operalive condition, wilh Ihe Iollowing exceplions:
9. OCCUPANTS: The premises are lot Ihe sol,~; use as a residence by Ihe Iollowing named persons only:
10. PETS: No animal, bird or pet shall be kepi o~ or aboul the premises without Landlord's prior writlen consenl, excepl NONE
11. USE: Tenant shall nol dislurb, annoy, endanqer or inlerlere wilh olher Tenanls of Ihe building or neighbors, nor use Ihe premises Ior any unlawful
purposes, nor violale any law or ordinance, ~lor commil wasle or nuisance upon or aboul Ihe premises. SF.~ ADDEHDUH
12. RULES & REGULATIONS: Tenanl agrees I,) comply wilh all CC&R's, Bylaws, reasonable rules or regulalions, decisions of owners' associalion
which are at any lime posted on Ihe premise ~ or delivered Io Tenanl, or adopled by owners' associalion, and Io be liable lot any lines or charges /
levied due Io violation(si.
13. MAINTENANCE: Tenanl shall properly us.e :~nd operale all lurnilure, furnishings and appliances, electrical, gas and plumbing fixlures and keep
Ihem as clean and sanilary as lheir condilic, n permils. Excluding ordinary wear and lear, Tenanl shall notify Landlord and pay Ior all repairs or
replacemenls caused by Tenanl(s) or Tenar, ls invilees' negligence or misuse. Tenanfs personal properly is not insured by Landlord.
14. ALTERATIONS: Tenanl shall nol painl, wallpaper, add or change locks or make alleralions Io Ibe properly wilhoul Landlord's prior writlen consenL
t5. KEYS: Tenanl acknowledges receipl ol keys Io premises and
At Tenanfs expense, Tenanl may re-key exi ;ting locks and shall deliver duplicale keys lo Landlord upon inslallalion.
16. ENTRY: Upon not less Ihan 24 hours nolice,'l! enanl shall make Ihe premises available during normal business hours Io Landlord, authorized agenl
or represenlalive, for Ihe purpose ot enlering Io (a) make necessary or agreed repairs, decoralions, alleralions or improvemenls or supply necessary
or agreed services, or (b) show lhe premises [o prospeclive or aclual purchasers, mortgagees, lenanls, or conlraclors. In an emergency, Landlord,
aulhorized agent or representalive may enle Ihe premises, al any lime, wilhoul prior permission from TenanL
17. ASSIGNMENT & SUBLETTINGS: Tenant si ~all not lei or sublel all or any part ol the premises nor assign this agreemenl or any inleresl in it.
18. POSSESSION: If Tenanl abandons or vacales Ihe premises, Landlord may lerminale Ibis agreemenl and regain lawful possession.
19. ATTORNEY FEES: In any action or proceed ng arising oul of lhis agreemenl, Ihe prevailing party shall be enlitled Io reasonable attorney's lees
and cosls.
20. WAIVER: The waiver of any breach shall noi be conslrued 1o be a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach.
21. NOTICE: Notice Io Landlord may be served Jpon Landlord or Manager'al
22. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Wilhin 10 days a~ler wrillen nolice, Tenant agrees to execule and deliver an esloppel certificate as submitled by
Landlord acknowledging that Ihis agreeme~ I is unmodilied and in lull Iorce and effecl or in lull fo~'ce and eflecl as modified and slaling the
modilicalions. Failure Io comply shall be dee 'ned Tenanls acknowledgemenl Ihal Ihe cerlificale as submilled by Landlord is true and correcl and
may be relied upon by a lender or purchase~
23. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: SEE ADDENDUM
24. ENTIRE CONTRACT: Time is ol Ihe essence;. All prior agreemenls belween Ihe parties are incorporaled in Ihis agreemenl which conslilules Ihe
enlire conlracl. Ils terms are inlended by Ihe i,arlies as a final expression ol Iheir agreemenl wilh respect lo such lerms as are included herein and
may nol be conlradicled by evidence ol any ~rl)rior agreemenl or contemporaneous oral agreemenL The parties lurther inland Ihal Ibis agreement
conslilules Ihe complele and exclusive slale~ 'rani ol ils lerms and Ihal no exlrinsic evidence whalsoever may be inlroduced in any judicial or olher
proceeding, il any, involving Ihis agreement.
25. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The undersigned have read Ihe foregoing prior to execution and acknowledge receipt ol a copy.
Landlord Tenanl
(or aulhorized agenl)
Landlord Tenanl
TI IlS STANDAR(}iZED DOCUMENT F('~ USE IN SIMPt. E TRAN.~! ACTIONS I LAS BEEN APPROVED BY Tt IE CALIFOn~A ASSOCIATION OF RF_ALTOr~e IN t'OPM ONLY NO riEPRESENTATION IS
MADE AS TO TI IE .aPPROVAL OF Tt IE T ('X'IM OF ANY SUPPL EME NT S NOT CURI'~N [LY PUBLI.~, ED BY TI,IE CALIF~ ~rlO~ OF RE)~T(:~ISe O~ TI iE LEGA4. VALIDITY O~ ~
OF At~Y PFIOVlSIOf4 IN ANY SPECFIC 1RANSACI ION IT SI k:~ 4.D NOT BE USED IN COMPLEX IRANSACTIONS Off WITIt EXTENSIVE F'U(~RS OR ADCXTIOt4S
A REAL ESTATE eFIOKER IS 11E PERSON OUALIF-ED TO ADV SE ON REA{. ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. COt,ISULT AN APPflOPf~TE PROFESS,K3NAL
Tt'*s bm~ ava,tahlet~t~ebylhe e~We ~eales~le,~)L~ The~(~lvsln~el ncd ~dm~('t.,<l Io~'~y I~e~,F~.~ as a F#EAL IO~e I'vE_AA TOt'l~ isa
Copyfi§hle 1987, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTOI
.525 South V,gtl Ave. ue. Los Angeles, Calilo~nia 90020
Revised lO 87
FORM RA- 14
OFFICE USE ONLY
[ Rev'~ewed by e~'oker o~ Designee
Dale
ADDENDUM TO RESIDENTIAL LEASE
DATED
USE (continued): Tenant recognizes that the premises are
located in an area which has c°mmercial/pr°fessional' offices.
Tenant agrees to use all reasonable efforts to not only avoid
disturbing, annoying, endangering or interfering with the owners of
those businesses, but also with their clientele/customers. Tenant
understands that unreasonable interference with the neighboring
businesses will result in tenant being evicted from the premises.
MAINTENANCE OF YARD: Tenant aqrees to maintain the yard and
property around the premises in goo~ and presentable condition, to
wit, condition consistent with the neighboring properties. In the
event tenant fails to so maintain the property, landlord will hire
someone to provide regular maintenance to the property. Such
expense shall be added to and become a portion of tenant's monthly
obligation to landlord.
VEHICLES AND STOR3%GE: Tenant shall park no more than two (2)
vehicles on the subject property on a regular basis. Further,
tenant shall not store any recreational vehicles or equipment on
the subject property.
Dated:
Tenant
Tenant
RUSSIAN RIVER PISTACHIOS, INC.
By
Landlord
PHOTO ALBUM
OF
528 SOUTH SCHOOL STRE,ET
UKIAH, CA 95482
Submitted by:
CROOK, BEVERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, CPAs
532 South School Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
1. Trash and ill-kempt yard
2. Vehicle on blocks
·
Vehicle on blocks
4. Another vehicle on blocks being worked
on by two people
5. G e n e r a .1.
y a r ,:i!i c o n d i t i o n
Motorhome and two cars
on property
yard mess and giant garbage container ready
for pick-up.
·
Motorhome in a different location and three
vehicles
·
Motorhome set-up with bird feeder and yard mess
10. : ::~ , :,:;~_ t::~,~o vehicles in back, motorcycle, tent
a ~ _.~ ~ing machine
11. Moto]-'home, pickup, 3 cars, numerous bicycles and
watching machine
12.
More of the same
13.
More of the same with the addition of a station
wagon set-up and used for sleeping
Genera fi c<>ndition of shrubs
15.
Numerous bikes, pickup with motor
16. Box trailer loaded witt~ garbage
17.
Pickup with some flat tires and
junk in it
18. The motor home gone after city
requested the same
19. Three cars and the bringing in of two boats
20.
More of
the
same
· - ~,
. ?;
-~%-
-21[ .... 4~Vehicles and two boats
22. More of the same
23.
Continuing problem
24. Continuing problem
27. 3 shopping carts and trash
0
28.
Surplus screen door
29. Tires placed on neighbors propeI'ty to
block access to cleaning and drain line
30.
Boat and debris
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESSES
514 SOUTH SCHOOL STREE',
516 SOUTH SCHOOL STREE
518 SOUTH SCHOOL ST~;.EEq
515 SOUTH SCHOOL STREE~
519 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
~'~,~: 2 SOUTtt SCHOOL STREET
DAILY JOURNAL
526 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
524 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
We the undersigned businesses, employees,
residents, and concerned citizens of the South
School Street area of Ukiah do hereby petition the
City of Ukiah Planning Commission to revoke the Use
Permit Application No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney
Maurer, for ,!~ single-family dwelling, at 528 South
School Street, zoned C-l, Light Commercial
District.
PRINT NAME & ADDRE:!;S SIGNATURE DATE
~'16 ~ 's. ~c h~l ~ '. ' .
9.
/ '
.
I
~ ~ ~.E' I~o ~ ~ ~ E~~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ I
I r~'~ ~ o ,: = :.N~ O~ ~1
I~ :-u~ ~ ~ ~o ~ -~'- ~
~ ~ = c ~ ~.~
~e~ ItCh: ~o~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~'; ~ o~
i_:: - ~ c o o Ic: c<- ~-: ~ ~- u~ ~: ~ o u
-qO "'
We the undersigned businesses, employees,
residents, a~d concerned citizens of the South
School Street area of Ukiah do hereby petition the
City of Ukia~ Planning Commission to revoke the Use
Permit Application No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney
Maurer,~ for ~ single-family dwelling, at 528 South
School. Street, zoned C-l, Light Commercial
District.
PRINT NAME & ADDRESS SIGNATURE
g
DATE
We the undersigned businesses, employees,
residents, and concerned citizens of the South
School Street area of Ukiah do hereby petition the
City of Ukia] Planning Commission to revoke the Use
Permit Applic.~tion No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney
Maurer,, for .~ single-family dwelling, at 528 South
School Stree-, zoned C-l, Light Commercial
District.
PRINT NAME & ADDRE~S
,SIGNATURE
.~-) ~' ~. ~1~/'"'5 f-
! i ~ ~' ' ~Sb ~ ~ I ' ' ' .N ~ ~. ~, ~z -
~ ~, ~,,'.~o~ v;- '
~. ~7o. mo' ~ ~~,~~
DATE
~/~
17.
18.
25.
A Woman approaching,
going to be hit
apparently
26. Yard trimmings and trash
We the undersigned businesses, employees,
residents, and concerned citizens of the South
School Street area of Ukiah do hereby petition the
City of Ukia~ Planning Commission to revoke the Use
Permit Application No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney
Maurer,, for ~ single-family dwelling, at 528 South
School. StreeL, zoned C-l, Light Commercial
District.
PRINT NAME & ADDRE3S ~.~IGNATURE DATE
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
We the undersigned businesses, employees,
residents, and concerned citizens of the South
School Street area of Ukiah do hereby petition the
City of Ukia]~ Planning Commission to revoke the Use
Permit Applic~:tion No. 90-20, as filed by Sidney
Maurer,, for ~!L single-family dwelling, at 528 South
School~ Street, zoned C-l, Light Commercial
District.
PRINT NAME & ADDRE'~:S .~ SIGNA DATE
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
S 119 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
RICHARD GARDINER, MD.
PSYCHIATRY
· UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95z[82
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 1993
TELEPHONE ~'7'~]')(',,.t,~¢~¢, ! A H
Dept. of Community Development
BRUCE D. CROOK, JR. CPA
TIM A. BEVERSDORF, CPA
DOUGLAS M. SOLIS, CPA
JULIE K. SAWYER, CPA
CROOK, EEVERSDORF & ASSOCIATES, CPAs
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MEMBERS
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALII~'ORNIA SOCIE"~ OF CERTIFIED PUSLIC ACCOUNTANTS
PRI%ATE COMPANIES PI~CTICE SEG'rlON OF THE AICPA
June 30, 1993
532 SOUTH SCHOOL STREET
UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482
(707) 462-8688
City Council
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Re: Revocation of Use Permit
Application No. 90-20
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 1993
CiTY UKiAH
Dept. of Community Development
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
I wish to express my firm's support for the City Planning
Department's recommendation to revoke the use permit
application number 90-20, and to support the Planning
Commission's revocation of that permit.
Even though th.e tenants have been removed and the property
appearance has been improved, our firm, our neighbors and
landlords believe that the size of this particular building is
not suitable as a residential dwelling due to its location in
relation to the neighboring property. Tenants that would care
for the property sinply would be extremely difficult to find.
Past tenants h~ve :
1. Let childr~n run loose on and off the property,
2. Used profalnity on each other, people walking by
and neiglnbors,
3. Had frequelnt police visits to quell disturbances
and fights,
4. Congregate~ in the front yard to drink beer,
5. Stared at flour every move,
6. Whistled alnd called to young women entering our
office,
7. Told clients, "Don't go in there because they'll
cheat yo']",
8. Shouted ob~cenities and run at clients leaving
the office,
9. Threatened bodily harm to fellow employees,
10. Made crude comments to females, "Come on
over, the old man wants to F~ you",
11. Stared, ma.:~e comments and generally made
the yar,:~ maintenance person feel uncom-
fortable,
City Council
City of Ukiah
Page 2
12. Have cussed at other people's children passing
througt'L our property's drainage area,
13. Kept lou~!~[ barking dogs,
14. Kept a huge loud and screeching bird,
15. Maintained an unsightly and ill kept yard, and
buildirl.g,
16. Stored old cars,
17. Operated a small engine repair shop,
19. Used the building and grounds for a multiple
family residence,
20. Used the property as a junk yard.
The Planning Commissioners saw pictures of the property
that I took between June 1992 and April 1993. I believe you
have received copies of these pictures.
The Planning Commission was presented with over a dozen
letters in support of the revocation and a petition with over
70 signatures from business & property owners as well as
residents.
We ask that since the property owners have shown callous
disregard for the neighbors~ and neighborhood that the City
Council affirm the Commission's decision.
Revocation is the only meaningful course of action because
it has been amply demonstrated that short term-stop gap
measures performed by the property owners to loosely comply
with requirements do not endure. The short term-stop gap
measures are performed solely to attain their immediate goals
and then allowed to lapse.
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Crook, Jr. /or
Crook, Beversdorf & Associates, CPAs
BDC,Jr/ddc
ITEM NO: lOa(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Nomination and Appointment of Commissioners - Airport
and Parks and Recreation (Three Vacancies each) by Resolution
and Set Date and Time for Planning Commission Applicant
Interviews
On May 19, 1993, Council authorized the annual advertisement of
upcoming City Commi~ssion expiration of terms. The application
deadline of June 9, 1993 was extended by Council on June 16,
1993 to June 30, 1993. The intention was to allow a full
Council to make the appointments and then set a date for
Planning Commission applicant interviews, as Planning
Commissioner Burke did not reapply.
Planning Commissioner Burke and Parks and Recreation
Commissioner's McGourty and Weselsky have all verbally
informed the City Clerk they do not wish to reapply as their
personal schedules do not allow enough time.
i. Airport Commission
With the resignation of Commissioner Johnson, there exists
three (3) vacancies on the Airport Commission. One appointment
of an out of City resident is allowed, which would provide the
maximum number of two as per Ukiah City Code. Applicants are
as follows;
Robert C. Wattenburger - eligible for one more term
Dorleen McBride - eligible for one more term
Mark E. Davis - out of City resident within sphere of influence
Vincent H. Angell - out of City resident within sphere
Jimmy Rickel - out of City resident within sphere of influence
Over
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
i. and ii. Mayor to nominate with confirmation of Council, and
authorize the City Clerk to re-advertise for additional Parks
and Recreation applicants;
iii. Adopt Resolut~ion making official appointments to the
Airport and Parks and Recreation Commission;
iv. Set date and time for Council interview of Planning
Commission applicants (4).
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: As desired.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No:
Appropriation Requested: N/A
Citizen Advised: N/A
Requested by: ,/
Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk ~l
Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachments: 1. C~.ty Commission Terms List, 2. Airport
Commission applications,~3. Parks and Recreat licati
4. Resolu~ m;ki3 o~ci~ a/pointments, ion App OhS,
ii. Parks and Recreation Commission
There exists three '~acancies on this Commission, with only two
applications received. This Commission is also allowed to
contain two Commissioners who reside outside the City limits.
Currently there are no Commissioners who fit this category.
Applicants are as follows;
Allan Johnson - eligible to serve one more term
William (Bill) Clarke - City resident
.iii. Adoption of Resolution Appointinq AirDort Commissioner~
Dnd Parks and Recrea~ion Commissioners
iv. Set Date and Time for Council Interview of Plannin~
Commissioner Applicants
The City Clerk has received four applications from City
residents for the one current vacancy on the Planning
Commission. In the past, Council has conducted interviews prior
to a regular Council meeting. It is expected the interviews of
all four applicants would take no longer than 1 1/2 hours, and
if Council desires, they could be conducted on August 4, 1993
commencing at 4:30 p.m., with the regular Council meeting
starting at 6:30 p.m. The appointment could be made at this
regular Council meeting.
~ OF CI~Z OF UKIAH BOARD ~D COM~SSION lq~R~ May 19, 1993
Airport- 3 year te~ *
Robert G. Webb
Sinet M. Simon *
John. Johnson
Allan Hunter
Robert Farnbach
Dorleen McBride
Robert Wattenburger
Present Term
Expires
Last Date
to Serve
6/30/94 6/30/97
6/30/94 6/30/97
6/30/95 6/30/98
6/30/95 6/30/95
~/30/.93 6/30/96
6/30/93 ........ 6/3_9~_96
Planning - 3 year term
Richard Long
William W. Randolph
Robert Reid
Estok Menton
Robert F. Burke
Leif Farr
Stephanie Hoppe
6/30/94 6/30/97
6/30/95 6/30/98
6/30/95 6/30/95
6/30/95 6/30/98
6/3o/93 6/30/99
6/30/94 6/30/94
6/30/94 6/30/97
Parks and Recreation - 3 year term *
Angela Hooper 6/30/95 6/30/98
Allen Carter 6/30/95 6/30/98
John W. Meier 6/30/95 6/30/98
Susan Johnson 6/30/96 6/30/99
Allan Johnson ................................................ _6_~.~_9/_~.~ ...................... _6/30/96
Glenn McGourt¥ 6/30/93 6/30/_96 ._
Tammi Weselsky 6/30/93 ~96
· Two Commissioners May Reside Within City's Sphere Of Influence
Civil Service Board -- 4 year term
Albert Beltrami (appointed by Council March 21, 1990)
Gary Bruchler (appointed by employees July, 1991)
Dan Saylor (appointed by two other members)
City Representative on the Library Advisory Commission
Ann Fatch 6/30/92
Cultural Arts AdvisoL~f Board
Diane Sloan
Barbara Wanderer
Jan McGourty
Star Carroll-Smith
Nancy Biggins
Jim Mayfield-Museum Endowment Fund
10/3/94
10/3/93
10/3/93
10/3/95
10/3/95
10/3/95
Kathy Rough-Sun House Guild 10/3/95
Vicki Sparkman-Ukiah Civic Light Opera 10/3/94
Evelyn Broaddus-Mendocino Ballet 10/3/94
Oini LaGoia-Education 10/3/93
Margaret Giuntoli-Mendo. Co. Historical 10/3/95
Jean Slonecker-Ukiah Symphony 10/3/95
Keith White Wolf James-MMDC 10/3/95
10/3/97
10/3/96
10/3/96
10/3/01
10/3/01
10/3/97
10/3/97
10/3/96
10/3/98
10/3/98
10/3/98
Golf Course Committee - 2 year term
Allen Carter - Parks and Recreation
Allan Johnson - Parks and Recreation
Perry Ramsey - Mens Golf Club
Donald Rones, Sr. - Public Member
- Womans Golf Club
6/30/95
6/30/94
6/30/94
6/30/94
6/30/9
6/30/98
6/30/96
6/30/96
6/30/96
6/30/9
Demolition Permit Review Committee - 2 year term
Robert Burke - Planning Comm. Chr.
Clif Shepard - Building Official
Marge Giuntoli - Hist. Society
Judy Pruden - Resident
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/95
6/30/97
6/30/97
6/30/97
6/30/97
I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah~'A~rport Commission
1. Name ~ ~ ,
2. Residence Address ~// ~<J C~'~ ~--
3. Business Address~ ~~~ Bus. Phone ~--~
4. Employer ~-~7-~R <i~ Job title --~'-- Employed since
5. How long have you res[dad 'in Ukiah? ~ > years; Mendocino County?
California? ~/ .
6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with.
Indicate office held
Res. Phone
Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport
Commission?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of
the Airport Commissi¢.n?
9. How do you believe ycur own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission?
10. What~o you believe is the single most important Airport related issue
facing our community? and why?
11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs, or Airport development
should the City encourage?
12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport
development should the City discourage?
13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on June 9, 1993
.Z
C'L' 6'h,) tL. i L,'~A~ ~, (..."),'L/.>/C.
CITY OF UKIAH
APPLICATIO~ FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION
Cll'Y' Ci.£Ri~< ?~.:i-~,-,, iv~ENT.
I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission
2. Residence Address ~"_.~i L~:/?~: .~/~.. /(~"~:///./.7 Res. Phone
3 Business Address /~:.~/ Z':>']-(~::_:'-('/ /~./)., {~?'dd//~__ Bus. Phone
4. Employer /~/.::-:: Job titleff./::::~:/~:: Employed since/'M
5. How long have yo?a resided in Ukiah? ~ years; Mendocino County?
California?
6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with·
Indicate office held ~JC.,/'_,~(: (~/~/~',! ~-Z?/
Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport
Commission?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of
the Airport Commission?
9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission?
10. What~so you believe is the single most important Airport related issue
facing our community'? and why?'
11. In your opinion, wha~ type of Airport programs, or Airport development
should the City encourage?
12. In your opinion', wha~ type of Airport programming or Airport
development should the City discourage?
13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on June 9, 1993
. .'
,. .. i- . - ii~,~>-..~-
,.
..... ~ / :..
.
/
ECEIVED
Date 6-7-93 i 8 1993
CJ'~Y CLERK DEPARTMEN'!
I am applying for an ap~:ointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission
1. Name
Mark E. Davis
2. Residence Address 13(1 E1 Dorado Rd.
3. Business Address 52C: S. State St.
4. Employer Hark Davis Insurance Job title Owner
Res. Phone 468-0872
Bus. Phone 462-9725
Employed since 1981
5. How long have.you resided in Ukiah? 17 years; Mendocino County? 17
California? 3u
6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with.
Indicate office held Hendocino County Board of Realtors
Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport
Commission?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose role and responsibility of
the Airport Commission? '
9. How do you believe yc:.ur own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission?
10. What so you believe is the single most important Airport related issue
facing our community?' and why?
11. In your opinion, what. type of Airport programs or Airport development
should the City encourage? '
12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport
development should the City discourage?
13. What kind of ideal co.~munity do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on June 9, 1993
7. Because I am an active pilot who uses the facility on a weekly
basis and can see n.~ed for improvement.
8. It would seem to me that the purpose of an Airport Commission
is to provide vision for the future, as well as astute modern
management advice t~ be carried out by the present airport
manager.
9. My entire education and background has been in business and in
management and more specifically insurance. The airport is in
fact a business, I would certainly hope that the airport could
find some way of benefiting from my knowledge.
10. I think that the single most important airport related issue is
the protection of the airport environment to insure long term
growth and use, as our community grows.
11. I don't have a specific answer to this question, but the first
thing that I would do, is to look around at aggressive successful
airports in similar types of communities and find out what the~
doing and analyze cn the basis of other success stories.
12. I would discourage any type of development or activity that would
cost money, without a definite return on investment, be it direct
or in-direct.
13. Ukiah already is m~~ ideal community, I think of course that it
could be improved upon with a little less emphasis on certain
environmental issuers and a little more emphasis on enhancing our
business environmeri~t for which the airport could play an
important role.
[gCEIVED
CITY OF UKIAH C~TY ~ [JKIA~
APPLICATION FOR AIRPORT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Date 3une 9, 1993
I am applying for an appointment to the City of Ukiah's Airport Commission
1. Name Vincent H. Angel]
2. Residence Address 18~i1 Ridge Road
Res. Phone 462-77q]
3. Business Address u~an, ual~:orn~a Bus. Phone
Angell's Mill 0~rks Pharmacy
4. Employer S~lf-F. mnl~.v~d (]R~~ Job title~m_~eis~ Employed since
5. How long have you res.:Lded in Ukiah? 38
California? 66 years
years; Mendocino County? 38 years
6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with.
Indicate office held I have attached a list of some or~anizati0n~ ~B~
and community ~roups which I have been associated with in the past 38 years in Uk~ah.
Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport
Commission?
8. What is your understanding of.the purpose, role and responsibility of
the Airport Commission?
9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission?
10. What so you believe :iLs the single most important Airport related issue
facing our community'? and why?
11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs, or Airport development
should the City encourage?
12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport
development should the City discourage?
13. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this applJLcation and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on. ~,
//
CITY OF U~tAH AIRPORT COMMiSSiON APPLICATION .
/. I am a pilot who nas T£~wn tor many years and Knows that tne uKlan airport
is one ot the very ~ln~st airports in nortnern ~allIornla. I nave a deep
concern Ior Its exlsta:~ce and Iuture ~evelopment. Hopelu£1y, lI appointed,
my tno~Ights on its ope'ration and Iuture development cou£a De conslaerea
constructive ~o the ~lsy oI uK~an.
My Impression is that the airport uommission is to exp£or, deve£ope, anu
advise on matters conc.~rnlng the UKlan Ulty Alrport...anG present tRese
thOUgRts to the UKlaR ~Jlty ~ouncli or Ulty oI uKlaR.
nave peen active in m.~ny successful C1VlC~ communlty~ business, an~
service organizations over tne past 3~ years In UKla~. ± think my experience
in ~eallng wltn many operations coul~ De oI some help.
£u. I believe there are two Important Issues .... YUDIlC relations and good planning.
in my mind the UKla~ A~.rport is one oI UKla~'s greatest assets, it is vlta££y
important to Doth Dus~]~ess and UKla~ development.
Good clean-air commercial business activity, coupled With a proper lease and
iinancial statement wo~[ld De o~ DeneIlt to the Ulty o~ uKlan. I would
encourage any pilot an(i alrcraIt safety programs and developments.
would not encourage oi~e tnat would not Tit Into good, so£1d, reasonable
airport DusIness programmIng...and expecla££y one wltnout good, long-term
iinanclai staDlllty. Jt must De a development or business that would not
leda to a Zuture conTl]ct With the airport itse£I or £eaQ to loosing the
airport.
in my opinion, uKian is already an ideal community. Goom airport meve£opment
is vital to continued ~na tutti,re success oI the City oI UKIan. MopeIu£1y.
With good reasonaD£e planning, our cnl£dren and others can and will continue
to en3oy what we Enow ~e already Rave.
Vincent M. Ang~
1~1 ~l~ge soa~l
URiah, ~a£1~ornla
PERSONAL VITAE
VINCENT H. ANGELL
BORN: JULY 20, 1927
HOME ADDRESS:
1891 Ridge Road
Ukiah, California 95482
Home Telephone:
(7o7)462-774a
Business Telephone: (707) 462-7575
Family: Wife
- Margaret
Daughters - Catherine Ann (March 21, 1953)
- Susan Leigh (February 8, 1955)
- Elizabeth Cecilia (June 6, 1959)
Son - James Ware ( August 23, 1256)
EDUCATION
High School:
Pre-Pharmacy:
Pharmacy:
St. Therese, Fresno, California 194~ - 1945
Fresno State College 1945
University of California, Berkeley 1947 - 1949
University of California, San Francisco 1949- 1952
DEGREE
!
Bachelor of Science, in Pharmacy
(1952)
LICENSURE
__
California State Bcard of Pharmacy
Nevada State Board of Pharmacy
(1952 to date)
(1952 to date)
MILITARY SERVICE
U. S. Army 2 years
(1945 - 1946)
In charge of testing (AGCT and Aptitude Tests) of all
Military personal in western states
Classification and Assignment Section
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
1941 - 1943
1943 - 1945
1950 - 1952
1952 - 1955
Pharmacy Stock Clerk, Harpers, Universal Pharmacies
Fresno, California (My introduction to Pharmacy)
Herman R. Cenci Pharmaceutical Laboratories,
Fresno. California (My introduction to Pharmaceutical Mfg.)
Intern Pharmacist, Physicians Pharmacy, San Francisco, Ca.
Registered Pharmactstm Physicians Pharmacy, San Francisco, Ca.
- continued -
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETC~ - 2 - VINCENT H. ANGELL
1955 - 1956
1956 - 1986
Med.[cal Representative, Eli Lilly &Ccmpany,
San Francisco, 2 Years
Angell's Mill Oaks Pharmacy, Inc., Ukiah, California
Community Pharmacy Practice'and Health Care, Oz-thopedic
Flt~:ings, Owner and Operator, 30 years.
Designed and developed 1st Drive-Up Pharmacy and
Professional Center in Northern California
1968- 1970
1965 - 1980
1970 - 1976
1975 - 1976
1975 - date
1978 - date
1985 - 1986
1983 - date
1983 - date
1985 - date
1986.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Fo~%der and 1st Presicent Mendocino County Pharmaceutical
Assc)ciation.
Pha~nacy Consultant, Driftwood Convalescent Hospital
Ukiah, California.
Areas of involvement - Continuing education, program
planning, development and implementation, federal reg-
ulations, interprofessional relations.
Boa:rd Member, Redwood Empire Pharmaceutical Association
Pre:~ident, Redwood Empire Pharmaceutical Association
Pha~.-macy Consultant, Anderson Valley Medical Clinic,
Bo~%ville, California.
Areas of Involvement - Continuing education, pharmacy
record keeping, labeling, federal and state reg~lations
pertaining to drugs and medicines, proper storage.
Board Member, UCSF Board of Governors, Pharmacy Alumni
Ass(~iation, School of Pharmacy
President, UCSF Pharmacy Alumni Association, Board of
Gow~rnors, School of Pharmacy
Director, UCSF School of Pharmacy, Blue and Gold Club
Director, AAUCSF Alumni Board, San Francisco, California
Me,)er, California Pharmacists Association, Education
Co~ittee
Co~ittee Chairman, UCSF School of Pharmacy, Alumnus
of the Year Selection Committee
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
~1 11 , , _ , _
American Pharmaceutical Association
California Pharmacists Association
Nevada State Pharmaceutical Association
- continued -
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH - 3 - VINCENT H. ANGELL
Redwc~d ~knpire Pharmaceutical Association
Natio~ml Association of Retail Druggists
Socie,:y of Community Practice
CPHA }'lying Pharmacist Association
APHA }'ly~g Pharmacists Association
CItriC AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
ill, J · 1111 i ~ 111
Commissioner, Mend~x:ino County Historical Commission
Director, Ukiah Telev~sion Association
Director, Ukiah Enemgy, Inc.
Deputy Sheriff, Sea::ch and Rescue Coordinator, Mendocino County
Sheriff's Air Squadron
Drug Liason Officer., Mendocino County Sheriff's Department
Commander - Mendocino County Sheriff's Aero Squadron 1975 - 1976
Con~ittee Chairman ~- Mendocino Cou~%ty Pharmacists for Don Clausen
U.S. Represent~tive, 1976, 1978, & 1980
Committee Chairman .- Mendocino County Pharmacists for Mike Curb Lt. Governor 1
Director Mendocino .County Chamber of Commerce, member 30 years
President - Board Director 8 years, Ukiah Council Camp Fire Girls
Board Member - 15 years, Ukiah Boy Scouts of America
President - Directo~ 8 years, Ukiah High School Band Club
Director - Palace Hotel, Ukiah (Historical Landmark)
Director - Life MemDer, Sun House, Ukiah (Historical Landmark)
Director - Advisory Committee, Mendocino County Saving and Loan Assn.
Director - Mtlano Winery, Hopland, California
President - Board F~;ember 28 years, Oak Hill Community Swimming Pool
and Tennis Club
- continued -
BIOGRAPHICAL SKET(3'{ - 4 - VINCENT H. ANGELL
C~4URCH AND FRATERNAL ACTIVITIES
Director and Council Member, St. Mary of the Angels Catholic Church
Ukiah, Cal£fol~ia
Grand Knight (1974',I St. Mary of the Angels, Council # 3791 Knights of Co~.umbus (Member 40 Years)
Distrtc~Deputy (19~5) District I, Knights of Columbus
President - Redwood Chapter, Knights of Columbus 1976 - 1978
Officer - 8 years, Ukiah Elks Club # 1728, (Member 25 years)
Program Chairn~tn 4 years.
C~TINUING EDUCATION PROJECTS
Continuing Education Director (1968 - 1972) Mendocino County
Pharmaceutica k Association.
Responsibilities - Developed and presented Pharmaceutical Acceptable
C.E. Programs to Pharmacis~ and nurses at Associatt~'s monthly
meetings.
Redwood Empire Pha~.-maceutical Association C.E. Committee
Chairman 4 years ( 1970 - 1973) (1978 - 1979)
Responsibilities - Arranged for State Board C.E. Acceptable
and Accredite,'~ nr~qrams by major drug manufacturers to be
presented. P.'.covtded for necessary documentation and recording
of courses an~ programs.
As Pharmacy Consul"=ant: Driftwood Convalescent Hospital 1965 - 1980
provided C.E. Education programs to nurses and staff. Developed
and implement.-=d, and presented programs.
Member Continuing Education Committee, California Pharmacists
Association (~986)
HOBBIES AND INTERESTS
Pilot - 2000 hours, Private, Commercial, Instrument, Multi-Engine
Amateur'Ham Radio Operator, General and Advanced
Musician - Bass Violinist, Ukiah Symphony Orchester, Jazz, dixieland
Amateur Winemaker - Enologist, U.C. Davis
Duplicate Bridge and Tennis
September 1986
C#G~CN aND F~aT&~#~L ~CTIVITIL3 :
Pa. /'ar. zncLa f~a~naad O.F.~. a,,~6LW' #, 20c~
CO#TINUI#q EDUC~TIO#
/9aa- /9a9- /
///~.17~
VLnc~nt #. an~dd
UkLak, CaiL/ornLa
~OF~5$IO#~L ~CTI VI TI~3 :
--
UC $o.a F,~c~co /9?0 - ~r~t¢
CITY OF UKIAH
AIrpOrT cO IS Io
Date
I am applying for an aP~:,ointment to the City
1. Name JIMMY RICKEl
2. Residence Address__~.~0 #~'1 N. STATE ST. UKIAH Rec.-Phone_ 485-7915
3.. Business Address~._BOx 2~ UKIAHBUS. PhonegAME
4. Employer_ HI_IMAN ~FRV~i~FS Job titleO0~SU[T~Lmployed since 1977
5. How long have ~u resided in Ukiah? ~0 years; Mendocino County? ~0
California?. - _
6. Please list community qrouDs or orqanizations Vou are affiliated with.
Indicate office held
REDWOOD EMPINE LIONS CLUB. DISTRICT LION S
~QUEST CHAI RMAN. '
Please answer the following ~]estions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Airport
Commission?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose role and responsibility of
the Airport Commissic.n? '
9. How do you believe ycur own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Airport Commission?
10. What so you believe is the single most important Airport related issue
facing our community? and why?
11. In your opinion, what type of Airport programs or Airport development
should the City encourage? '
12. In your opinion, what type of Airport programming or Airport
development should th~ C~ty discourage?
13. What kind of idea], community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk
on March 31, 1993
by Noon
HUMAN SERVICES
Outreach - Consultation - DMV Processing - Productions
~ I TY COUNC I L
UK I AH, CALI FORN I A
9 5 4 8 2
Post Office Box 24, Uldah, California 95482
RE: QUESTIONS (?o~)
GREET I NGS:
PLEASE RECE I VE TH l S APPL I CAT l ON FOR THE A I RPORT COMMI SS I ON
SEAT... I' HAVE THOUGHT MUCH ABOUT DOING PUBLIC SERVICE AND
HAVE DECIDED TO SUBMI T THIS LETTER.
I SEE THE'A'IRPORT'S DEVELOPMENT AS ONE OF THE VALLEYS ASSETS.
WITH POSSIBLE EXTENS,FON .SOUTHWARD AND WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS
ON SITE WE COULD SOMEDAY SEE A NICE RESTRAUNT.
REAL I ZING THE COM~II SE, ION BUT REVIEW .RELATED ITEMS FOR THE C I TY
COUNCIL,
MY COMMUNITY' WORK,iCON"BUT ONLY HELP MY EFFORTS. UKIAH
I S A # 1 CALI FORN I A .C I TY AND WI TH DA I LY FL I GHTS OUR A I RPORT CAN
BRING NEW LIFE INYO THE VALLEY.
ASA COMMISSION MEMBEr? I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR A GRAND MASTER PLAN
WITH LITTLE OR NO ENCROACHMENT ON THE AIRPORT AND IT'S SERVICES..
.,.
THANK YOU,;' ~
JIMMY RICKEL~
Date
APPLICATION FOR PARKS AN C A COMM i'-,~~A~I~O~NTMENT
I am applying for an~.,_~appointment to the C.:.~t~C,L~' ~3~k~ah's Parks and
Recreation Commission
1. Name .,~ ~ ,,~'A/
2. Residence Address ~ ~.- ~ ~~ ~¢,~~~
3. Business Address
4. Employer ~-~~ Job title
5. How long have you resided in Ukiah? ~ years; Mendocino County?
California? 7¢
6. Please list co,unity groups or orga~zations vou are affiliated with.
Indicate offices held ~,F CR//~/~ ~¢¢~r
Re s. Phone
·
Bus. Phone
Employed since
Please answer the following questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and
Recreation Commission?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of
the Parks and Recreation Commission?
9. How do you believe your own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and
Recreation Commission?
10. What so you believe is the single most important pax'ks and
recreation related issue facinq our community? and why?
11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of .
recreational programs, or parks development shoUld the City encourage?
12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks
development should the City encourage?
13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks
development should the City discourage?
14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on June 9, 1993.
To' Ukiah City Council
From' Allan Johnson
Date' May 26, 1993
Gentlemen:
I am applying for a re-appointment to the City of Ukiah's Parks and Recreation
Commission, my current term E~!xpiring June 30th this year. I would like follow
through to the completion of some of the projects currently under guidance of the
Parks & Recreation Commission and City Staff. In addition I think it has taken
a few years of on-the-job learning experience to become an effective Commissioner.
I think the Parks & Recreation Commission plays an important role in the
development of recreational ~l)rograms and facilities for the citizens of the City
through study and discussior~ of the needs of the City and it's recommendations
to the Council for their cc~nsideratrion. In so doing the Commission makes it
possible for the Council to focus on the main point of any such issue in their
deliberations.
I am sure my past work expE~riences plus the three years on the Commission now
being concluded, and servic.~ with other community groups, gives me sufficient
background to serve effectively for the next three years.
As a Commissioner I feel the matter of most importance to the Commission at this
time is completion of the projects under way such as Anton Stadium and the
Community Swimming Pool. I think also the Commission needs to focus on the lack
of park and recreational f~.cilities in the southern portion of the City. The
area is sadly lacking in this respect. Plans under way for the Orchard develop-
ment and Observatory property if pushed along will help a great deal.
I fully support the current programs of the Community Services Department. I
think the staff is doing an excellent job and should be commended and encouraged
to continue as they are. 11 cannot think of any of their programs or plans for
the future that should be d-iscouraged or eliminated.
What kind of an ideal community do I envision for Ukiah? In my opinion Ukiah is
already an ideal community to live in, a wonderful place to live in, full of
friendly and helpful people., clean air, a beautiful valley. I only hope we, all
of us, can keep it that way for many years to come.
Thank you.
1993
,,; .....K DEPAR'I~MENT
I am applying for an appointment to the City of '~i~"?S Parks and
Recreation Commission
2. Residence Address
3. Business Address
4. Employer /;,~i';,c. ~-/// Job title Employed since
5. How long have you res::...ded in Ukiah? 2'~ years; Mendocino County? .,~?/'~
California?_. ~ -.~?
Res. Phone
Bus. Phone
6. Please list community groups or organizations you are affiliated with.
Indicate offices held ~//~-/~ ~/?' ./'~/c -/~/~ _~_/~/.,~ /~/~ r ~/'~'~-s '/~, ~
Please answer the follc,wing questions on separate sheets of paper and
attach.
7. Why are you applying to serve on the City of Ukiah's Parks and
Recreation Commissior:~.?
8. What is your understanding of the purpose, role and responsibility of
the Parks and Recreation Commission?
9. How do you believe ycur own skills, experience, expertise an
perspectives will be beneficial to the work of the Parks and
Recreation Commission?
10. What so you believe is the single most important parks and
recreation related issue facing our community? and why?
11. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, what types of .
recreational programs, or parks development shoUld the City encourage?
12. In your opinion, what type of recreational programs, or parks
development should the City encourage?
13. In your opinion, what type of recreational programming or parks
development should the City discourage?
14. What kind of ideal community do you envision for Ukiah?
Please return this application and attachments to the City Clerk by Noon
on June 9, 1993.
,× ·
~ L
· ?
///
RESOI2]TION NO.
RESOLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFUKIAH
APPOINTING CO]OHSSIONERS TO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION
A~)~ PARKS ANDRECREATIONCOHMISSION
The City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby RESOLVE:
5
is appointed as a Commissioner on the Airport
Commission to fill the term of John Johnson which expires June
7
30, 1995.
8 is appointed as a Commissioner on the Airport
9 Commission for a term which expires June 30, 1996.
]0 is appointed as a Commissioner on the Parks and
]] Recreation Commission to a term which expires June 30, 1996.
]9. .... is appointed as a Commissioner on the Parks and
]3 Recreation CommJ. ssion to a term which expires June 30, 1996.
]4 . is appointed as a Commissioner on the Parks and
]5 Recreation Commission to a term which expires June 30, 1996.
16
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 1993 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
22
23
24
25
ATTEST:
Fred Schneiter, Mayor
26
27
Cathy McKay, City Clerk
28
AGENDA
SUMMARY
REPORT
ITEM NO. lla
DATE: JULY 7, 1993
SUBJECT: CITIZEN PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW COMMI'I-I'EE RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
As part of our City's overall economic development program, the City Manager identified a need
to improve our City's planning and development review process. In order to accomplish this
task, he felt it was important to seek out the advise and input of individuals who have had
extensive experience, both pro ar3d con, with our City's planning process, and would bring with
them an informed, community perspective on the subject. The Committee membership was
comprised of individuals who ha~e a wide range of experience with the City's planning process
including Don Albright, lending institution; Bob Burke, Planning Commission Chairman; Ed
Busch, construction; Jack Cox, land development; Doug Crane, construction; George Rau,
engineering; and Glenys Simmo[~s, real estate.
The Committee began meeting ir February and over the following three months considered the
entire spectrum of the development process from zoning code requirements and Planning
Commission education, through building and fire code specifications, to fees and service charges
and communication between stall, applicants, and the community. The Committee discussion
and dialogue with City staff was very informative, thought provoking, and productive. Many
issues were analyzed from sev..~ral perspectives and a clearer understanding of concerns,
opportunities, legal requirements, and community directions was a prime result of this effort.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Express appreciation to the Citizen Planning Process Review
Committee for their fine job; receive and file the recommendations; and instruct staff to return
to Council with specific implementation for the recommendations.
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS:
1. Determine modifications tc the recommendations of the Committee are necessary, identify
the desired changes, and direct that the recommendations as revised are implemented.
2. Determine the Committee"s recommendations are not appropriate and take no action to
implement.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.:
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised: Yes
Requested by: Citizen Planning Process Review Committee
Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, Director of Community Development
Coordinated with: Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager; Citizen Planning Process Review
Committee
Attachments: 1. June 11, 19:J3 memorandum from Planning Process Review Committee,
pages 1-5.
2. Revised General Plan/Zone Change, Site Development
/,//~/~ Plm~t~ar~,,~e/U/~e P/~rmit, and Subdivision Application forms, pages 6-11.
APPROVED: :h_~;/tax'u~ ~-(('~i~'~anaie~~
¢ aries L. Rough, Jr.
The Committee developed recommendations in each of the areas they considered. The changes
proposed are grouped into four categories: 1) zoning code amendments, 2) development fees,
3) building and fire codes, and 4) processes and application forms. Though specific monetary
and/or time savings attributed to these changes could not be calculated, substantial benefits will
accrue to the community. The results should include improved communication, increased
efficiency, reduced processing time, and a greater knowledge of the City's direction, goals,
policies, and procedures.
Staff believes the Committee has done a very commendable job and their recommendations are
very appropriate. We have initiated some of the modifications already (as noted with the revised
application forms as attachment #2), and are set to proceed as directed by the City Council.
Staff recommends the City Council direct that the recommendations of the Citizen Planning
Process Review Committee be developed for implementation.
rnh:planning
asr 6/30/93 ppro
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
JUNE 11, 1993
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITIZENS PLANNING PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDA'FIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TOTHE CITY OF UKIAH'S
DEVELOPMEN'[' PROCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Citizens Planning Process
Review Committee. Our committee appreciates the opportunity you gave us to openly
and directly review the City's development process and hope these recommendations are
received in the spirit they are made - to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the
requirements imposed upon development within the community.
We met on nine occasions over the last five months and discussed various issues with
many staff members. The recommendations are organized into four categories: 1)
zoning code changes, 2) development fees, 3) building and fire codes, and 4) processes
and application forms. Though we could not specifically calculate the economies these
recommendations would result in, financial savings as well as reductions in processing
time, and greater understandi~3g of the City's objectives and direction will be realized.
The following changes in codes or procedures are recommended:
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS:
A)
Amend the Zoniqg Code as noted in the attached pages 1-13.
The attachments are excerpts from the existing zoning code with
proposed changes. The amendments are intended to provide
greater le.titude in project review and approval while still providing
appropriate public review.
B)
Direct that a review of the locations of the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial,
zoning district be conducted to evaluate their appropriateness and take
action to rezon~ accordingly.
During our review of the allowed and permitted uses within the C-N
zone, it was noted that the current application of the zone throughout
the City may not meet the needs as originally intended for this zone.
It appears the zone is to be a transition between residential and
commercial or to be used for commercial nodes within residential
blocks. The major C-N locations are the shopping centers, Orchard
Ave., and Gobbi Street; areas which might be more appropriately
zoned C-1, Light Commercial. Since the change would be between
commercial zones, this matter would not have an impact on the
General Plan and thus not constitute a consistency issue.
DEVELOPMENT FEES:
A)
Direct that a program to evaluate in-lieu park fees be set up to include the
definition of park area and locations within the General Plan, calculation of
costs to implement a parks plan, identification of remaining land available
for development., and determination of per acre cost of implementing park
plan to be utilized as in-lieu park fee.
The current method of implementing the park dedication code does
not insure parkland will be created and does not provide a
relationship between actual land cost and the fee imposed.
B)
Direct that the City either:
1) contract for structural and energy calculation plan check
wit~ fee to cover precise service provided, or
2) 'equire private sector "plan check" verification and sign off
prior to application submittal, from list of qualified Architects
and Engineers.
In either situation the cost will be borne by the individual requiring
the service. Currently a portion of the first option is utilized by the
City. ThE~ second option must be researched to determine if legally
authorize,:l and liability neutral. If both are acceptable, the onus is
then placed with the applicant to complete these matters prior to
building permit application, reducing the time involved in permit
issuance and administration.
BUILDING AND FIRE CODES:
A)
Direct that research be completed to determine the feasibility of and if
appropriate, initiate code modifications for:
1) City requirements regarding noncombustible parapet walls,
2) piercing wall if sprinkler system is required, and
3) qualified private contractor review and sign off of fire
sprinkler plan check (similar to item B2 in Development Fees).
Items 1 and 2 are specific code provisions which have an affect on
construction costs, though their removal may have no impact on
health a..3d safety. Item 3 is similar to item B2 under the
Development Fee section, which is intended to reduce City workload,
placing l:he cost on the applicant and the code compliance
responsibility on qualified experts within the private sector.
B)
Direct that the process be initiated to:
1) adopt the most recent versions of the building related
codes with the greatest flexibility for responding to
development concerns while not compromising health and
safety standards, and
2) develop a fast track system (same day permit issuance) for
st~tndard types of construction such as single family dwellings.
Though tile City's process and staff respond in a flexible and rapid
manner, the recent codes and an established system for specific
types of projects should provide opportunities for additional service
to the construction community.
c)
Support the administrative proposals to:
1) insure contract plan checkers communicate with applicants
on a regular basis through the review process, and
2) conduct in-house plan check of minor projects during
periods when requests for infield inspections by the Building
Of:~icial are slack.
Both of these items should increase the communication between the
development community and the City, expediting the process.
PROCESSES AND APPLICATION FORMS:
A)
Direct that the process be initiated to:
1) have appeals of Zoning Administrator actions heard by the
City Council rather than the Planning Commission, and
2) change Standard Condition No. 6 to allow two years within
which to validate variances, use permits, and site
development permits from the current one year requirement.
These items should reduce processing time, and not jeopardize the
public hearing process.
B)
Support the administrative proposals to:
1) have Planning Staff work more closely with applicants in
the early stages of project conception and application
completion,
2) complete formal written communication with the applicant
following the Project Review Committee and staff analysis of
aplalications,
3) insure that final inspections and compliance with approval
conditions (or assurances of compliance through bonds, etc.)
3
are completed prior to use and occupancy of business or
re~sidential units, and
4) more specific written information regarding application
processing, goals, and objectives of the planning process, and
dir'ections and programs the City is pursuing is made available
to the community.
5) on the application forms:
a) provide more introduction to the specific type of
applicable entitlement,
b) identify timelines for the specific process,
c) state that applicants are encouraged to discuss the
project and application form with the planning staff,
d) identify specific dedication of off/on site
improvements required of a project,
e) specify the different number of copies of Site plans,
elevations, location maps, etc. for applications heard
by the Project Review Committee, Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council,
and limit the number to the absolute minimum for
processing,
f) include an example of an acceptable landscape plan
similar to the example plot plan currently a part of the
application,
g) add "mobile home park" to the list of residential
projects enumerated in the application form,
h) questions of "Zoning for adjacent properties" and
"curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements" be
completed by staff prior to distribution of the application
form for a particular project,
i) state that applicants are encouraged to meet with
neighbors regarding the proposed project even before
the application is prepared with the intent of modifying
the project to be compatible and acceptable to property
owners and residents.
Each of these items is intended to increase communication, ease in
application3 submittal, and efficient use of staff resources and pending
data base. More "user friendly" applications and greater personal
interactior~s between staff and the community should result in a
greater alapreciation of the City's efforts toward securing quality
development in the most expeditious and cost effective manner.
CITY OF UKIAH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
"WE ^.R E ~ E It Ii; TO SERVE" 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 95482
707/463-6200
?"': ' ~:'
[[--]' -- General 1 lan Amendment
i
[Project Descnptton
Applicant's Name' Property Owner:
Address: Address:
Zip Code:
Zip Code:
Phone: ( )
Phone: ( )
Address or precise location of subject property:
Number Street Name Cross Street
Site Infor~,aflon Existing Proposed
Site Area (net acre ~
Number of lots
Uses
I/we the understgned, solemnly understand and h{:reby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that all infonn~i~'i~i'it~d'"~ ...................
this application and on required plans are accurate, tree and correct to the best of my/our information and belief.
I/we understand that intentional misrepresentation of factual information may invalidate development entitlement approvals granted by
the City of Ukiah in reliance upon such information. I/we also understand that failure of the property owner, applicant, or a duly-
authorized representative to appear at a hearing at which this application appears on the agenda may result in delayed processing of the
application.
I affirm that I am the owner of the real property wMch is the subject of the application, or that I am duly authorized to represent said
property owner or agent in this matter before the City of Ukiah.
Date executed this day , month
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Applicant
Agent for Applicant
(Agents are required to submit written authorization from pmpe~ owner dud/or applicant.)
Fees
Processing: $600.00 Negative Declaration.. $50.00 County processing fee: $25.00 (separate cbeck)
(Note: additional feea from Dept. of Fish and ,,3ame for either $850.00 or $1 ~50.00 may be required of the application pending environmental review)
Application Requirements
The applicant must submit the following set of materials: 32 sets for Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Plans must be
folded to a 81/2"x 11" size.
Location Map - Assessor's parcel map showing: · Assessor's parcel numbers, a north arrow.
· Adjoining land uses.
Sumit any additional information, studies, plans, or documentation which might assist the Planning Division staff in better
understanding the proposal. If more space is needled to answer any of the questions, please attach an additional sheet.
Contact Person: Noel M. Ibalio, Associate Plam'~er - 707/463-6207.
Note: Applicants are encouraged to submit plans to the Planning Division for preliminary review, and notify surrounding
property owners of the project being proposed.
Application Number:
(proposed):
Hearing Date: P.C.
Date Submitted: General Plan (existing):
Environmentall Determination: I"! Negative Declaration ['"l Environmental Impact Report
· City Com'~cil
CITY OF UKIAH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
"WE ARE HERE TO SERVE" 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 95482
707/463-6200
::::::::::::::::::::::: '!~!i.~i:i" ' ' ":::: :::::::-..... ...... :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............ :.:.:.:.:.:... .................................................
Fl Site Development Permit (aoes not require a public hearing) [~] Administrative Variance
[-'! Variance F'! Administrative Use Permit
I'-! Use Permit
Project Description:
Applicant's Name'
Address:
Zip Code:
Phone: ( )
Address or precise location of subject property:
Property Owner:
Address:
Phone: ( )
Zip Code:.
Number Street Name Cross Street
Site Infi:~mation Existing Proposed
Site Area (net stuare footage)
Building Square Footage
Parking
......... ........ ............... ........................... .......... ......-...... ..... . .... . .... ..... . ............ . ........ ........ . ................ : ........................... :.:.:.:.: ........ :.:.:.:
I/we the undersigned, solemnly understand and hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that all information presented in
this application and on required plans are accurate:, true and correct to the best of my/our information and belief.
I/we understand that intentional misrepresentation of factual information may invalidate development entitlement approvals granted by
the City of Ukiah in reliance upon such information. I/we also understand that failure of the property owner, applicant, or a duly-
authorized representative to appear at a hearing at which this application appears on the agenda may result in delayed processing of the
application.
I afl'mn that I am the owner of the real property which is the subject of the application, or that I am duly authorized to represent said
property owner or agent in this maUer before the 12:ity of Ukiah.
Date executed this day.. , month
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Applicant
Agent for Applicant
(Agents are required to submit written authorization from propert~ owner and/or applicant.)
Fees
Processing: Negaave Declaration: $50.00 County processing fee: $25.00 (separate check)
(Note: additional fees from Dept. of Fish and Gam,~ for either $850.00 or $1,250.00 may be required of the application pending environmental review.)
Application Requirements
The applicant must submit the following set of m~.terials: 25 sets for Planning Commission meetings, 3 sets for Zoning Administrator.
Plans must be folded to a 8 1/2"x 11" size.
Location Map - Assessor's parcel map showing: · Assessor's parcel number, a north arrow.
· Adjoining land uses.
· Distance to nearest public street.
· Existing fire hydrants within 600' radius of subject property.
Plot Plan - Scaled plot plan showing: · North arrow.
· All property lines, fully dimensioned.
· Adjoining streets, their names, right-of-way width, and
location of curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
· Natural and Man-made features (creeks, hills, roads,
rock out croppings, and channels).
· Existing/proposed building dimensioned to the property
lines.
· Proposed improvements and their distance~: to property
lines and other structures.
· Parking spaces, aisles, and bumper stops d:~wn and
dimensioned with the flow of traffic and proposed
paving.
· All mature trees.
· Location and width of ingress and egress, existing and
proposed.
· Nearest wall and or structures on adjacent properties.
· Proposed walls, fences, include height and materials.
· Approximate percentage of land s, lope and direction of
surface drainage.
· Square footage of proposed building.
· Location of accessory buildings.
· Width and location of existing and proposed public
easements.
· Existing and proposed utility lines.
· Location of trash enclosures/recycling area.
Building Elevations - Plans must include front, rear and side views of building facades. Materials and color must also be shown on the
plans. One plan must be colored. Signage for the building must be shown.
Landscape Plans - Plans must show existing landscaping, proposed trees, ground cover, lawn/sod area, pedestrian circulation, specific
automated irrigation design and the treatment of all unpaved areas not occupied by structures.
Contact Person: Noel M. Ibalio, Associate Plamter - 707/463-6207.
Note: Applicants are encouraged to submit plans to the Planning Division for preliminary review, and notify surrounding
property owners of the project being proposed.
IApphcation Number: Date ,!,ubmitted: Assessor s No. Zoning:
I General Plan: He&ring Date:: P.R.C. P.C. Zoning Admin.
CITY OF UKIAH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
"WE ARE HERE TO SERVE" 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA. 95482
707/463-6200
I[--] Major Subdivision [-'-i Minor Subdivision
I Project Description:
Applicant's Name' Property Owner:
Address: Address:.
Zip Code:
Phone: ( )
Address or precise location of subject property:
Zip Code:
Phone: ( )
Number Street Name Cross Street
Site Infi:,rmaflon
Site Axea (net ~ crc)
Number of lots
Uses
Existing
Proposal
I/we the undersigned, solemnly understand and l~ereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that all information presented in
this application and on required plans are accurat,~', true and correct to the best of my/our information and belief.
I/we understand that intentional misrepresentation of factual information may invalidate development entitlement approvals granted by
the City of Ukiah in reliance upon such information. I/we also understand that failure of the property owner, applicant, or a duly-
authorized representative to appear at a hearing at which this application appears on the agenda may result in delayed processing of the
application.
I aff'u'm that I am the owner of the real property which is the subject of the application, or that I am duly authorized to represent said
property owner or agent in this matter before the City of Ukiah.
Date executed this day ., month , and year .
Signature of Property Owner
Signature of Applicant
Agent for Applicant
(Agents am requited to submit written authorization from prolx rty owner and/or applicant.)
Fees
Processing: $700.00 (major sub.), $225 (mincr sub.) Negative Declaration: $50.00 County processing fee: $25.00 (separate check)
(Note: additional fees from Dept. of Fish and Ga me ma$iaS, fannn $850.00 r $1,250.00 may be required of tho application pending environmental review)
Application Requirements
The applicant must submit the following set of mal:erials: 25 sets for Planning Commission meetings (major subdivision only) and 13
sets for project review committee. Plans must be folded to a 81/2"x11" size.
Subdivision Map - The tentative map must be on sheets of eighteen inches by twenty six inches (24"x36") in size at scale not smaller
than fifty feet to the inch (1"=50'-0"). The n~p must be prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land
surveyor. Each map shall contain as a minim~un the following data:
Requirements for Major Subdivision:
· The track number and name or designation..
· A sufficient legal description of the land as Io define the
boundaries of the proposed tract.
· The name and address of the record owner, the subdivider
and the engineer or land surveyor preparing the map.
· The location, names and existing widths of all adjacent
highways, streets and alleys, and all existin;; permanent
buildings in the area to be subdivided, and ! he location
and names, if any, of all existing pennanenl: or
intermittent watercourses.
· The tract number or names of adjacent sub~livisions or
property owners.
· The existing sewers, culverts water mains, l~,as mains and
power lines within or immediately adjacent to the tract,
with the pipe sizes, grades and locations indicated.
· Contours with intervals of 2' where slopes ¢:,f natural
ground is one 1%, 5' where slope is greater than 1% but
Requirements for Minor Subdivision:
· Existing easements and right of way.
· Existing/proposed structures.
· Existing/proposed driveway access.
· Property lines existing/proposed showing a. il dimensions.
less than 5%, 10' where slope is greater than 5% but less
than 10%, and 25' where the slope is 10% and greater.
· The widths and approximate grades of all proposed
highways, streets and ways within such proposed
subdivision.
· The location and width of all proposed easements for
drainage and public utility purposes.
· The approximate lot layout and approximate dimensions
of each lot.
· The approximate radius of all curves.
· The tentative size and location of sewer mains.
· The tentative size and location of gas mains.
· The tentative size and location of water mains and fire
hydrants.
· The location of street signs.
· The tentative location of electric underground lines,
easements and street lights.
· A typical cross-section of street showing sidewalks, curb,
gutter and the type of paving and base to be used.
· Proposed improvements.
· The approximate lot layout and approximate dimensions
of each lot.
· The name and address of the record owner, the subdivider
and the engineer or land surveyor preparing the map.
· Contours (see above)
· Existing and proposed utilities (sewers, water, and
electric).
Contact Person: Noel M. Ibalio, Associate Planner - 707/463-6207.
Note: Applicants are encouraged to submit plans to the Planning Division for preliminary review, and notify surrounding
property owners of the project being proposed.
Application Number:. ~__ Date Subn fitted: _ Assessor s No. m I
I
Zoning: General Plan: ~ Hearing Date: P.R.C. P.C.
We believe these recommended changes will improve the planning process and sound
a strong voice to your constituer~ts that Ukiah is committed to providing the most equitable
and responsive service possible.
Again we appreciate this opportunity to make these recommendations to you and are
prepared to meet with you to discuss any factors you desire.
Sincerely,
THE CITIZENS PLANNING PF~OCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE
Charles L. Rough, Chairman
Don Albright, Member
Bob Burke, Member
Ed Busch, Member
Jack Cox, Member
Doug Crane, Member
George Rau, Member
Glenys Simmons, Member
MH:PLANNING
PPRC REP TO CC
· · · · · ·
o~
o~
· · · · · · ·
0
ITEM NO. llb
DATE: July 7, 1993
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: REQUEST BY COUNTY OF MENDOCINO FOR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO ALLOCATE TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY USING
THE ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION METHOD ("TEETER
PLAN").
This item comes to the Council as an emergency item. It was received after
the posting of the agenda for this meeting, and requires action before the
next Council meeting.
By changing their accounthng and tax allocation method, the County will be
able to lessen their impact from the State transfer of funds to schools.
To do this, they must adopt the "Teeter Plan," which they did adopt on
July 7, 1993; and the affected taxing agencies must also pass resolutions
asking to be included in zhe "Teeter Plan."
The County staff report is attached for further information. To briefly
summarize:
Best Case- City receives $82,320 "bonus" payment in 93/94; future years
are unchanged.
Worst Case- City receives $82,320 "bonus" payment in 93/94; future years
are unchanged., until County reverts to old allocation method
causing return of $82,320 plus inflation.
(Continued on Page 2)
EMERGENCY ACTION- Place on agenda as New Business Item #1lb.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve resolution requesting City inclusion
in the alternative method of property tax
dist~ibution ("Teeter Plan").
ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICU OPTIONS:
1. Do not place item on agenda or adopt resolution.
Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.:
Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted)
Citizen Advised- N/A
Requested by: County of Mendocino, Auditor-Controller
Prepared by: Louise Burr, Finance Director
Coordinated with- Charles L. Rough, Jr., City Manager
Attachment ~/' /C~t~/~ta~eport. s: 1. Resolut~on.j ;
4/CM/ASR.TEETER ~ '
SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
The current secured tax will be allocated based on assessments rather than
collections. The first year (93/94) will add $82,320 to City property tax
revenues. Subsequent ~'ears should remain unchanged. If the County
reverts to the standard method of allocation in the future, the one-time
bonus of $82,320 (adjustec for increases in assessed value) would be lost.
It is unlikely that the County would revert to the standard allocation
method because of the relative simplicity of the Teeter Plan.
By opting into the Teeter Plan the City could gain $82,320 (best case) or
remain unchanged (worst case). For this reason and to cooperate with the
County, Staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
4:CM/ASR.TEETER
'1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUFION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
REQUESTING INCLUSION OF THE CITY IN THE ALTERNATIVE
METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION ("TEETER PLAN")
WHEREAS, state taw authorizes counties to adopt an alternative procedure for the
distribution of property tax revenue· commonly known as the "Teeter Plan,' pursuant to
Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 470] et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the IV endocino County Board of Supervisors adopted the 'Teeter Plan'
on July 6, ]993; and
WHEREAS, state law requires that the City authorize the application of the Teeter
Plan to tax revenue due this City; and
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed material presented by the County Auditor-
Controller and has determined that adoption of the Teeter Plan by the County of
Mendocino and application of the Teeter Plan to this City would provide one-time
property taxes of app-oximately $82,320, simplify the tax apportionment process, and
result in Increased stability and predictability of property tax revenue, to the benefit of
this City.
NOW, THEREFOI;IE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendocino County Auditor-Controller
is authorized and directed to allocate current secured tax revenue due this City
according to the Alter'~ative Method of Property Tax Distribution ("Teeter Plan").
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
· 1993, by the
MAYOR
ATrEST:
CITY CLERK
4:CM:RES.TEETER
TEETER PLAN
ALTERNATE METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION
(ACCRUAL METHOD )
Background:
- Revenue and Ta~:ation Code Section 4701
- Currently used by five Counties in California
- 100% of proper%~y taxes (Current Secured only) billed
allocated to agencies
General Benefits:
- Provides one time increase in property tax revenues to all
taxing agencies (approximately $5 Million)
- Simplifies property tax revenue estimation and allocation
process
- Stabilizes property tax revenues
- Generates highe:~ tax revenue during periods of recession
- Reduces the prol)erty tax shift to state and schools
resulting from AB8 transfer (relative to delinquent taxes)
Specific Advantages ~:o Taxing Agencies:
- One-time property tax revenue increase of approximately
$3 million for ~.993-94- generates additional annual interest
- Current year secured tax levy paid out at 100%
- Estimating annus.1 property tax revenue is more accurate
Possible Disadvantages:
Reverting back %o current method (i.e. cash basis) would
have an adverse financial effect on agencies who spent
their one-time distribution
Remaining Issues/Implementation Steps:
- Discuss with Cities, Schools and Special Districts - obtain
opt-in resolutioi~ by July 15 deadline
- Board approval by July 15, 1993
- Make all necessai~sy modification changes by December 1993
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE I
TEETER PLAN
ALTERNATE METHOD OF PROPERTY TAX APPORTIONMENT
(ACCRUAL VS . CASH BASIS )
Background:
In 1949, The State Legislature adopted Revenue and Taxation code
section 4701 which authorized the "Alternative Method of Property
Tax Distribution". This alternative method was proposed by the
Contra Costa Auditor-Controller Desmond Teeter, and therefore,
the method is sometimes referred to as the "Teeter" plan.
As stated in Section 4701, "It is...the object of this
alternative procedure to accomplish a simplification of the tax-
levying and tax-apportioning process and an increased flexibility
in the use of available cash resources". This method has been
used by Contra Costa County for over 40 years and is currently
used in Solano, Sisk.£you, E1 Dorado and Toulomne Counties.
In simple terms, this distribution method authorizes the Auditor-
Controller to alloca-~e to agencies 100% of the secured property
taxes billed but not yet paid (i.e. accrual basis); whereas, the
current method only allows allocation of secured property taxes
actually paid (i.e. cash basis). Under our current method,
delinquent taxes, penalties and interest are allocated, when
collected, by a separate allocation process. Therefore, the
alternate method only requires one allocation process; whereas,
the current (old) method requires .tw° allocation processes.
As described later itl this report, the Teeter plan method offers
Mendocino County ager~cies the following benefits:
- Simplifies the pI~operty tax revenue estimation and allocation
process for the agencies and the Auditor
- Stabilizes property tax revenues
- Generates higher property tax revenues during years of higher
property tax delinquencies
- Provides a one-time increase in property tax revenues to all
taxing agencies
Potential Benefits:
During years in which the delinquent taxes are rising, each
agency would receive more property taxes under the alternate
versus the current me'!hod. For the past several years,
delinquent taxes have increased and is anticipated to continue to
increase over the nex~ three years. Ail taxing jurisdictions
would have received
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 2
Potential Benefits (cont.):
more property tax revenues under the Alternative method during
this time period.
However, the single largest benefit of the Alternative method is
the one-time allocation of the prior year's delinquent property
taxes. It is estimated that the outstanding amount of delinquent
property taxes, penalties and interest at June 30, 1993 will
approximate $5.5 million. Once a decision is made to use this
method, 95% of the above amount outstanding will be allocated to
all agencies as if this amount had actually been collected. For
the County General Fund, this one time increase in property tax
revenue would be approximately $2 million. As stated later in
this report, we are ~ecommending that the $2 million be used to
finance our required reserves under this method.
In addition, as the delinquent taxes are collected, the Tax
Collector also will be receipting associated 10% penalties and
18% interest. These funds are normally deposited to a Tax Loss
Reserve Fund required by the alternative method. When the total
deposits into this fund exceeds 4% of the current year secured
property tax levy amount, the excess can be transferred and
credited to the County General Fund.
Under the Alternative method taxing agencies can accurately
estimate their annual property tax revenues. They now know
they will receive 10C% of the secured property taxes billed,that
After the Assessor submits the tax roll to the Auditor, and the
property value changes are determined and calculated, we will
then know the total secured taxes that will be billed. Each
taxing agency, based on their allocation factor, will receive
100% of its portion of the total levy.
Under the existing current method, estimating property tax
revenues is very complex. First, each agency must obtain the
secured property taxe~ billed by the Auditor. From this amount,
they then subtract their estimate of the annual delinquent taxes.
This then determines 'the net current year secured tax revenue.
Second, they must est.[mate the amount to be collected on the
delinquent accounts pi[us penalties and interest. Forecasting
this latter amount does not lend itself well to utilizing any
currently used scientific methodology.
Utilizing the Teeter plan method, all current year taxes are
distributed to the ag(~ncies and the need for a multiple
allocation process is no longer necessary in apportioning prior
year taxes.
Remaining Issues:
As mentioned above, during the first year of using the
Alternative method, it is necessary to advance to the taxing
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 3
Remaining Issues (cont.):
jurisdictions an amount equal to the total delinquent secured
property taxes outs%~anding plus accrued penalties and interest.
In addition, the County must establish a reserve equal to 4% of
the total tax levy (approximately $1.4 million). We are
proposing to use a portion of the one-time $2 million revenue to
the General Fund to finance the reserve requirement and to
utilize the Treasury. pooled funds (cash from all agencies in the
Treasury) to finance the buyout. As delinquent property taxes
are later collected, we will repay the Treasury pool. The 10%
penalties and 18% interest collected on the delinquent property
taxes will be used to pay interest to the Treasury pool for
financing the advances. Any excess penalties and interest could
be retained in a Tax Loss Reserve Fund or distributed to the
County General Fund.
Many of the California counties are looking into the feasibility
of changing to the Alternative method. We are in the process of
comparing our analysis of the effects and comparing our findings
to theirs to verify that all the pertinent variables were taken
into consideration.
Steps to Implementation:
- Resolve the issues discussed above
- Communicate this change to the taxing jurisdictions within
Mendocino County
- Secure Opt-In resolutions from the taxing jurisdictions as
may be required
- Prepare a Board of Supervisor resolution, by July 15 1993
for adoption ' ·
- Implement any system modifications prior to the first
property tax allocation in December 1993
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 4
county of Mendocino
Auditor-Controller
Teeter Plan Analysis
SCHEDULE C,F ANNUAL SAVINGS
ASSUMPTION: COUNTY OPTS-IN TO TEETER PLAN IN 198%90
SCHEDULE A
Collection Year
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5- -6- -7-
Penalty/ Current Teeter Current Penalty/ Estimated Revenue Gain
Interest Method of Method of Levy Gain Interest Redemption From Method
Collected Apportion Apportion Buyout Pmt Buyout Pmt Change (Col
198%90 82g 202 354,069
lggO-gl 838 416 358,004
1991-g2 628 758 26g,108
1992-g3 611 285 244,514
lgg$-g4 Est 694~161 242,g$6
lgg4-g5 Est 740,102 259,056
lggs-g6 Est 781,g35 273,677
1996-g7 Est 822,068 287,724
3-2+4-5-6)
829.202
858.416
628 758
611 285
694 161
740 102
781 935
822 068
Estimated Redemption BuFout Cost:
645.019
782.476
794.165
798~SgO
730 211
763 070
797 408
833 292
Estimated Average Base interest
lgSg-go
1990-g1
1991-92
1992-g3
lgg$-g4 Est 4,291
1994-95 Est 4,575
1995-96 Est 4,853
1996-97 Est 5,081
4,437 003
3,880 603
3,683 834
3,934 272
221
224
830
930
405,588 358,543 376,020
405,588 257,284 600,017
4D5,588 168,72D 57g,5D7
405,588 150,224 629,549
405,588 139,465 636,362
0 148,695 1,095,441
0 157,099 1,148,566
0 165,163 1,202,473
Estimated
Cost
7.63% 338 543
6.63% 257 284
4.58% 168.720
3.31% 130 224
3.25% 139.465
3.25% 148695
3.25% 157.0gg
3.25% 165.163
COUNTY STAFF REPORT
PAGE 5
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO - TEETER ANALYSIS
APPORTIONMENT OF ESTIMATED REDEMPTION BUYOUT
SCHEDULE B
ENTITY PRIOR APPORT!ON CURRENT APPORTION TOTAL
FACTOR AMOUNI FACTOR AMOUNT BUYOUT
COUNTY GENERAL 0.3829659 1,187,811.~7 0.$5~1390 69~,515.23 1,882,326.70
ROAD 0.028~29~ 88,176..96
ACO 0.0020232 6,275.18
PROMOTION 0.001680~ 5,211.95
LIBRARY 0.01~1053 ~3,7~9,!6
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION 0.0120085 37,2~$.70
CITY OF FORT BRAGG 0.00577~8 17,g11.19
CITY OF POINT ARENA 0.0006781 2,103.20
CiTY OF WILLITS 0.010~082 32,282~.19
CITY OF UKIAH R-1 0.0169365 52,530.l~
UKIAH PARKING
CALPELLA WATER
BROOKTRAILS COMM SERVICE
MENDOCINO COAST HOSPITAL
NOYO HARBOR DISTRICT
COAST LIFE SUPPORT
~OOKTRAILS MAINTENANCE DIST
BROOKTRAILS MAINT 1976-1
SO HUMBOLDT COMM HOSPITAL
ELK COMMUNITY SERVICES
UKZAH VALLEY FiRE
~CRRFC ~ WCID
~ENDOCINO COMMUNITY SERVICES
~ENDOCINO COAST RECREATION
LAYTONVILLE WATER
POTTER VALLEY IRRIGATION
REDWOOD VALLEY WATER
WESTPORT WATER
0.028~29~ 55,753.96 1~$,930.92
0.0020232 3,967.77 10,2~2.95
0.001680~ 3,295.50 8,507.~5
0.01~1053 27,662.43 71,~11.$g
0.0120085 23,5§0.32 60,796.02
0.0051552 10,110.06 28,021.25
0.0006057 1,187.86 3,291.06
0.0095219 18,673.75 50,955.g~
0.0151900 29,789.68 ~'~,320.12
0.0003781 1,173.65 0.0003781 742.09 1,915.7~
0.00023~8 728.26 0.0001~09 276.32 1,00~.58
0.00311~8 9,660.90 0.0018689 3,665.17 13,326.07
0.0068066 21,111.~$ 0.0068066 13,3~8.68 3~,~69.11
0.0014807 4,592.56 0.0008968 1,758.75 6,351.31
0.0010&01 3,225.99 0.0010~01 2,039.78 5,265.77
0.00~2917 10,209.57 0.0019750 3,873.25 14,082.82
0.0001122 3~8.]0 0.0000673 131.98 479.98
0.0000079 2~.i0 0.0000079 15.~g 39.99
0.0000110 34..2 0.0000066 12.g~ ~7.06
0.0066238 20,5&~.~.5 0.0058~00 11,453.0~ 31,g97.~g
0.0006029 1,869.'!~6 0.0004333 8~g.76 2,719.72
0.001~189 4,400.~!~ 0.000851~ 1,669.71 6,070.59
0.0059777 18,5~0.!!0 0.00~8365 g,485.0~ 28,025.5&
0.0002171 673.~!6 0.0001503 255.54 928.90
0.002366~ 7,339.~:5 0.0018728 3,672.82 11,012.~7
0.0011800 $,659.~'0 0.0007080 1,388.~g
0.0000883 273.~;7 0.0000530 103.94 377.81
ALEXANDER ESTATES LIGHTING 0.000128~ 398.25
COVELO LIGHTING 0.0001183 366.92
FAIRVIEW ACRES LIGHTING 0.000021~ 66.3~
HOPLAND LIGHTING 0.0001315 ~07.8~
LAYTONVILLE LIGHTING 0.00005~3
NOTO LIGHTING 0.0001496 464.01)
OAK KNOLL LIGHTING 0.0001107
RIVERWOOD TERRACE LIGHTING 0.0000177
UKIAH VILLAGE LIGHTING 0.0001061 $29.0(!
WEST TALMAGE LIGHTING 0.0000~66 1~4.5~i
~EADOWBROOK MANOR SANITATION 0.0000206 63.8~
NCFC & WCID 0.0017123 5,310.8~
ANDERSON VALLEY CEMETERY
CEMETERY DIST OF REDWOODS
COVELO CEMETERY
HOPLAND CEMETERY
~ENDO-LITTLE RIVER CEMETERY
POTTER VALLEY CEMETERY
~USStAN RIVER CEMETERY
WESTPORT-TEN MILE CEMETERY
0.000563~ 1,747.~5
0.0011376 3,528.~g
0.0001145 355.13
0.0000910 282.25
0.0003852 1,194.74
0.000153~ 475.79
0.0036391 11,287.07
0.0000670 207.81
0.0001049 205.72 603.97
0.0001059 207.68 57~.60
0.0000192 37.65 104.02
0.000120~ 236.12 6~3.98
0.0000~89 95.90 264.32
0.0001366 267.89 731.89
0.0001003 196.70 5~0.05
0.0000160 31.38 86.28
0.0000971 190.45 519.51
0.0000422 82.76 227.30
D. DD00187 36.67 100.56
0.001560~ 3,060.16 8,$71.05
0.000~888 958.60 2,706.05
0.0009723 1,906.81 5,435.20
D.DDD0857 168.07 523.20
D.00007~2 145.52 427.77
D.D005309 648.9~ 1,845.68
0.0001260 247.10 722.89
0.0030086 5,900.28 17,187.35
0.0000~82 g~.53 302.3~
COUNTY STAFF REPORT
PAGE 6
ENTITY PRIOR APPORTi!ON CURRENT APPORTION TOTAL
FACTOR AMOUNI FACTOR AMOUNT BUYOUT
ALBION-LITTLE RIVER FIRE 0.0008859 2,747'.72 0.0007302 1,452.02 4,179.74
COVELO FIRE 0.0005169
FORT BRAGG RURAL FIRE 0.0012974
LEGGETT VALLEY FIRE 0.0001915
LITTLE LAKE FIRE D.0020707
LONG VALLEY FIRE 0.0004841
~ENDOCINO FIRE 0.0012867
PIERCY FIRE 0.0001258
REDWOOD VLY-CALPELLA FIRE 0.0022844
SOUTH COAST FIRE 0.0015492
LITTLE LAKE WATER 0.0000355
ROUND VALLEY WATER 0.0002593
ANDERSON VALLEY COMM SERVICES D.0016012
POTTER VALLEY COMM SERVICES 0.0005455
UKIAH VALLEY SANITATION 0.0008573
1,60).22
4,024 03
593 96
6,422 51
1,501 49
3,990 84
390 18
7,085..32
4,184~.69
110.11
742.22
4,966.30
1,691.93
2,596.98
0.000403 790.34 2,393.56
O.OOlO&54 2,050.17 '6,074.20
0.0001463 286.91 880.87
D.0017622 3,455.92 9,878.43
0.D002905 569.71 2,071.20
0.D010556 2,070.18 6,061.02
O.OOOlOl~ 198.86 589.04
D.D019744 3,872.07 10,957.$9
0.0011976 2,348.66 6,533.35
D.DO
0.0000297 58.25 168.36
0.DD02134 418.51 1,160.73
0.0013260 2,600.47 7,566.77
D.0804153 814.46 2,506.39
0.0005104 1,000.96 3,597.94
EDUC REVENUE AUGMENT FUND
TRAINABLE M R
BOARD OF EDUCATION
REGIONAL OCCUP CENTER
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
CA?iTAL OUTLAY
PHY$ HANDICAPPED MINORS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
EOUALIZATION OFFSET
ARENA UNION
mANCHESTER UNION
POINT ARENA UNION HIGH
ANDERSON VALLEY UNIFIED
FORT BRAGG UNIFIED
~E~DOCINO UNIFIED
ROUND VALLEY UNIFIED
LAYTONVILLE UNIFIED
LEGGETT VALLEY UNIFIED
~iLLITS UNIFIED
POTTER VALLEY UNIFIED
LIKiAH UNIFIED
~ENDOCINO COMM COLLEGE
?iERCY REDWOOD JC
?!ERCY UNIFIED SPEC TRUST
P~ERCY UNIFIED SPEC SCHOOLS
SONOMA JUNIOR COLLEGE
O.O00OO00
0.0016798
0.0092039
0.0021860
0.0038997
0.0044726
0.0026096
0.0020794
0.0164396
0.0108624
0.0021585
0.0109344
0.0145116
0.0569076
0.0383579
0.0085436
0.0180623
0.0028190
D.0527944
0.0095554
8.1322861
0.0422425
D.0185061
0.0010368
0.0000534
O.)O
5,210.)9
28.546.'~2
6 780.:.2
12 095.:~,5
13 872. :i~7
8 093.~ 7
6 449.(ig
50~989.25
33.690.~15
6 694.83
33914.26
176 505.27
118 971.3L
26 498.91
56 022.2,~
8 743.4,:.
163747.7;;!
29 637.1~
410.300.1[
131.019.2~.
57,398.7~;
3,215.7~i
165.6)
0.0055139 17,101.98
1.0DODO00 3,101,611.56
3,101,611.59
0.0430046
0.0016798
0.0092039
0.0021860
0.0038997
0.0026096
0.0020794
0.016~396
0.0108624
D.0021585
0.0109344
0.0143116
0.0569076
0.0383579
0.0085436
D.0180623
0.0028190
D.8527944
0.0095554
D.1522861
0.0422425
D.0185061
D.0010368
0.0000534
0.0055139
84,337.93
3,294.32
18,050.11
4 287.05
7 647.85
8 771.38
5 117.78
4 077.99
32 240.31
21 302.66
21445.86
28.067.01
111~603.62
75,225.11
16 755.17
S5,422.65
5 528.45
103 537.07
18 739.45
259 431.22
82 842.95
36,293.00
2 033.31
104.72
10,813.52
1.0000000 1,961,137.36
1,961,137.39
84,337.93
8,50~.41
46~597.03
11 067.17
19 743.20
22 643.65
13 211.75
10 527.48
83.229.56
54.993.61
10.927.95
55.~58.12
72,456.03
288.108.89
194 196.42
91 444.89
14 271.89
267,284.79
48,376.59
669,731.32
213,862.16
93,691.73
5,249.06
270.35
27,915.50
5,062,748.92
COUNTY STAFF REPORT PAGE 7
0
MMDP PROGRAMS
1. Cultural Planning Project
TOWN MEETINGS; SURVEYS; 1;.EPORT
2. Quarterly Newsletter
COMMUNICATION ABOUT RESOURCES/PROGRAMS
3. Multicultural Development Fund
FUNDING TO INDIVIDUALS; ,a~RTS/CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS;
BUSINESS/SCHOOL COLLABC"RATIONS WITH MATCH
4. Municipal Funding Working G~;oup
LOCAL GOVERNMENT/BUSINESS SUPPORT; MEMBERSHIP THROUGH FRIENDS
OF MMDP (Mendocino Bounty, l~/Iendocino Community Foundation, Economic Develop-
ment Summit)
5. Community Gallery
CO-SPONSOR 10 SHOWS OF L()CAL ARTISTS
6. Information Resources
CAC/FUNDING OPPORTUNFI'IES (Database, Grants, Workshops, Exhibits, Linkages)
7. Technical Assistance
GRANTWRITING; FUNDRAISItxIG CONSULTATIONS; PLANNING AND DEVELOP-
MENT OF CULTURAL RESPONSES
8. Outreach to Underserved Communities
COASTAL COORDINATOR; PI~I.OJECT DEVELOPMENT TO ENCOURAGE CROSS/
CULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION
NANCY McHONE
Program Director
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
MENDOCINO MULTICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
400 £. Commercial Street
Willits, CA, 95490
(707) 459-7897
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE/4/20/9:~
Multicultural Development Fund Awards Arts Grants
The Mendocino Multicultural !l)evelopment Program, a county agency for arts and cultural development,
announces the award of 11 grm~ts to SUl~port community cultural projects taking place between May 1 and December
1993. The Grant Review Panel of the iM endocino Multicultural Development Fund awarded grants of up to $750.00
to encourage the development and supp,~rt of diverse arts and cultural programs for all residents of Mendocino
County, focussing especially on previously underserved communities.
Funding will pay for painting supplies for a mural designed by Laytonville High School students in the
Bioregional CORE class to depict the area's flora and fauna. The Gualala Art Center, on the south coast, will receive
grant money to pay for a bus to transpor: underserved youth to summer art classes. Harrison Street House in Fort
Bragg will use their award to continue a~'t classes for developmentally disabled adult residents, leading to a public
exhibition of the created work.
A Latino theatre arts staff persen will be hired with an MMDF grant for a multicultural summer arts
program co-sponsored by the Potter Valley Parent Teacher Student Association. Partial funding will
encourage a series of events featuring le;bian women writers, sponsored by an emerging non-profit called Mama
Lion. MMDF dollars will help with start, up costs for Network Artreach - a program to distribute free tickets to
Ukiah Players Theatre performances through social service agencies in the Ukiah area.
The Multicultural Development Fund will also support a Spanish language publication of local writers
connected with Vivian Power's Mendoci~o College classes; provide funding for costumes for the Kaleidoscope Dane ~.
Company, a Willits area group of teen datacers who will be performing for the first time in May; provide 8 free
summer workshops for children in the W~',stport area on the north coast, focussing on Coast Yuki culture, with a
final exhibition planned at the Fort Bragg Center for the Arts.
Covelo will be the site of a natural dye plant demonstration garden, which will share the results of the
cultivation of specific plants for dye pigments with artists and agricultural students. The remainder of this second
round of grants from the Mulficultural Develo[~ment Fund will provide the Mendocino Coast Hospice with an artist
in residence who will provide workshops for w,lunteers and staff in simple art techniques, as well as classes for
patients and their families in their home setting
Allocations from the California Arts C ~uncil and the Cities of Willits and Ukiah have made this grant
program possible. Further questions about the l~ulticultural Development Fund or the Mendocino Multicultural
Development Program can be directed to Nancy McHone, Program Director, at 459-7897.