HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-01 Packet - Special Meeting - Palace HotelPage 1 of 2
City Council
Special Meeting
AGENDA
Civic Center Council Chamber ♦ 300 Seminary Avenue ♦ Ukiah, CA 95482
To participate or view the virtual meeting, go to the following link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/97199426600
Or you can call in using your telephone only:
• Call (toll free) 1-669-444-9171
• Enter the Access Code: 971 9942 6600
• To Raise Hand enter *9
• To Speak after being recognized: enter *6 to unmute yourself
Alternatively, you may view the meeting (without participating) by clicking on the name of the meeting
at www.cityofukiah.com/meetings.
November 1, 2023 - 4:00 PM
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in,
you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda that is
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council, you may do so at this time. 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 in which the subject is not listed on the agenda.
3. NEW BUSINESS
3.a. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Building Official's Recommendations Regarding Palace
Hotel Property and Exemption Determinations under Ukiah City Code Section 3016(b)(2) and
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the Building Official's recommendations
regarding Palace Hotel property and exemption determinations under Ukiah City Code Section
3016(b)(2) and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
1. 2015-07 CC Resolution
2. Receivership Chronology
3. 2022.04.06 State - Discharge Order
4. Draft Discharge Notice and Order
5. Determination of Exemption- signed cbo and cdd 10-24-23
6. 1.31.23-Winter-Storms-EO
7. 3.8.23-SOE-Storms-Additional-Counties (002)
8. Proposed Resolution
9. Power Point Presentation - Palace Hotel Inspection
4. CLOSED SESSION
Page 1 of 97
Page 2 of 2
4.a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4))
Initiation of litigation (1 case)
5. ADJOURNMENT
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services
are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with
disabilities upon request. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are
available for public inspection at the front counter at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482, during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Any handouts or presentation materials from the public must be submitted to the clerk 12
hours in advance of the meeting; for handouts, please include 10 copies.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at
the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting
set forth on this agenda.
Kristine Lawler, CMC
Dated: 10/26/23
Page 2 of 97
Page 1 of 5
Agenda Item No: 3.a.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 11/1/2023
ITEM NO: 2023-3148
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Approving the Building Official's Recommendations Regarding Palace
Hotel Property and Exemption Determinations under Ukiah City Code Section 3016(b)(2) and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
DEPARTMENT: City Attorney PREPARED BY: David Rapport, City Attorney
PRESENTER: David Rapport, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2015-07 CC Resolution
2. Receivership Chronology
3. 2022.04.06 State - Discharge Order
4. Draft Discharge Notice and Order
5. Determination of Exemption- signed cbo and cdd 10-24-23
6. 1.31.23-Winter-Storms-EO
7. 3.8.23-SOE-Storms-Additional-Counties (002)
8. Proposed Resolution
9. Power Point Presentation - Palace Hotel Inspection
10. 3a Correspondence Received - Tom Let & Meri Castillo
11. 3a Correspondence Received - Kristin Ohlson
12. 3a Correspondence Received - Betty Lacy
13. 3a Correspondence Received - James Persky
Summary: Council will consider adopting a Resolution approving the Building Official's recommendations
regarding Palace Hotel property and exemption determinations under Ukiah City Code Section 3016(b)(2) and
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Background: In Resolution No. 2015-07 adopted in 2015, the City Council found that the Palace Hotel
Property (at that time owned by Questex Corporation) was a dangerous building under Ukiah City Code
(“UCC”) § 3300 et seq. and a public nuisance and directed the City Engineer to petition the Mendocino County
Superior Court for the appointment of a receiver to take control of the property and abate the public nuisance
conditions. (See Resolution No. 2015-07 (Attachment 1).) The resolution directed the City Engineer to return
to the City Council for further instructions if the receivership failed to remedy the condition of the property.
A receiver was appointed on January 9, 2017, who subsequently borrowed funds, secured by a receivership
certificate on the Palace property. The receiver used the borrowed funds to pay receivership expenses,
including engineered plans to seismically retrofit the unreinforced masonry walls, repair the roof and make
other necessary repairs to the roof and window and door openings. (See chronology in Attachment 2 which
are taken verbatim from the recitals in the Settlement Agreement among the receiver, the property owner and
the City pursuant to which the receiver was discharged and the receivership terminated.) However, the
receivership could not raise sufficient funds to construct these improvements and title to the hotel changed
when Questex Corporation could not repay the loan and the lender foreclosed on the receivership certificate.
The receiver has been discharged and the receivership terminated. (See Order Discharging Court-Appointed
Page 3 of 97
Page 2 of 5
Receiver, and Dismissing Action When Conditions Stated in the Settlement Agreement Are Met (“Discharge
Order”), attached as Attachment 3.)
Discussion: CURRENT CONDITIONS
On September 29, 2023, the City’s Chief Building Official and its Fire Chief and two Battalion Chiefs, with the
Owner’s consent, conducted an inspection of the Property and recorded their observations in photographs,
which are contained in a Power Point Presentation prepared by the Chief Building Official. (“Power Point
Presentation.”) Based on that inspection, the Building Official has determined that the former hotel has
deteriorated dramatically since the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-07. (See Power Point Presentation;
included as Attachment #9.) Based on that inspection, in his opinion, the building poses an imminent risk of
damage to persons or property due to its advanced stage of deterioration. In the Building Official’s opinion,
heavy rains from last winter’s storms have caused or substantially contributed to the building’s current
unstable condition. It appears that the heavy rains last winter resulted in major water intrusion into the building,
which has accelerated its deterioration. (See Attachments 5 and 6.)
As can be seen in the photographs taken by the Building Official official, some flooring has collapsed and is
hanging vertically. Substantial portions of the floors on all three stories of the building have buckled and
cracked. Wooden crossbeams providing lateral support have cracked or broken. In the Building Official’s
opinion, any weight on substantial portions of the flooring on all three stories could cause them to collapse.
Some portions of the unreinforced masonry in interior walls have collapsed. Portions of the roof are sagging.
Rainwater enters the building from the deteriorated roof and open windows. There has been substantial
deterioration of the mortar in the outside brick walls of the Palace fronting State and Smith Streets and
contiguous to the back of buildings on Standley Street.
Given that the building fronts on State, Smith and School Streets and is contiguous to buildings on Standley
Street, any outward failure of the structure could injure people on those streets or in those buildings and cause
property damage to vehicles on the streets and to the adjacent buildings and their contents.
BUILDING OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Building Official recommends that he issue a notice to the Building Owner pursuant to the Building
Official’s authority under Sections 116 and 117 of the California Building Code. The order will require the
Owner to submit within 30 days after service of the order a plan and application for permits to stabilize and
demolish the hotel structure. The plan must include interim measures to prevent damage to persons or
property and a reasonable timeline for completing the work. In the alternative, the notice will allow the property
owner to submit a study from a California licensed structural engineer providing an alternative to demolition
that will abate the imminent risk of collapse posed by the structure’s current condition and applications for the
permits required to perform the work recommended by the study. (See draft Notice and Order, attached as
Attachment 4.)
EXEMPTION FROM HISTORICAL REVIEW UNDER UKIAH CITY CODE SECTION 3016.B(4)
The Palace Hotel is over 50 years old and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Under Ukiah City
Code (“UCC”) section 3016.D, a review of the building’s historic significance is required before a building
permit can be issued for its demolition. However, under UCC §3016.C, if the Planning Director or his designee
determines that immediate demolition of the building is necessary to protect the public health or safety and the
failure to immediately demolish the building would constitute a serious threat to the public health or safety, no
review of the building’s historic significance is required.
Based on the September 29 inspection, in the Building Official’s opinion, as the designee of the Director of
Community Development, demolition of the building is necessary to prevent an imminent risk and serious
threat to public health or safety. (See Determination of Exemption from Review for Historical and Architectural
Significance under Ukiah City Code Section 3016) (Attachment 5.)
Page 4 of 97
Page 3 of 5
EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires environmental review of projects either
undertaken by or subject to approval of the City.1 The issuance of a demolition permit by the City’s Building
Official would ordinarily be considered a ministerial project exempt from environmental review under
CEQA.2 However, Ukiah has modified the California Building Code as adopted in Ukiah to require the City
Council to determine the historical significance of buildings, like the Palace Hotel, that are over 50 years
old,3 and Public Resources Code Section 5028 requires approval from the State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) before a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places is demolished. Under these
authorities, issuance of the demolition permit may not qualify as a ministerial project.4
Based on the condition of the Palace Hotel, however, two exemptions from environmental review under CEQA
apply: (1) Projects undertaken or approved by the City to maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace a
building damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which a state of
emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to the Emergency Services Act5 and (2) Specific
actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.6
Both of these statutory exemptions apply to the Building Official’s recommendations and the subsequent
actions taken to implement the actions recommended by the Building Official.
1. The significant deterioration of the Palace Hotel resulting in its current unstable condition likely
resulted from the heavy rains last winter causing heavy water intrusion.
PRC § 21060.3 defines “Emergency” as a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent
danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property, or
essential public services. Under PRC §21080(b)(1) demolition or stabilization of the Palace Hotel is subject to
this statutory exemption from CEQA, if damage is the result of a disaster in a disaster-stricken area in which
the Governor has proclaimed an emergency under the California Emergency Services Act. §15269 of the
CEQA Guidelines7 adds that: This includes projects that will remove, destroy, or significantly alter an historical
resource when that resource represents an imminent threat to the public of bodily harm or of damage to
adjacent property.”
In Executive Order N-2-23, on January 16, 2023, the Governor did declare an emergency under the
Emergency Services Act in response to the impact of the severe winter storms on “impacted communities
across the State . . . causing [flooding and] infrastructure damage”. (See copy of emergency declaration.
(Attachment 6.) On March 1, 2023, the Governor made an additional emergency declaration for 13 identified
counties, including Mendocino County and on March 8, 2023, he extended that proclamation based on the
forecasted impact of atmospheric reivers on those counties. (See Proclamation of State of Emergency
attached as Attachment 7.)
In the Building Official’s opinion, based on the current condition of the building as compared to the conditions
observed in the 2017 inspection and his opinion that the observed conditions are caused by water intrusion
which weakens the wooden floors, joists and beams and increases the weight load on these structures, the
unusually heavy rains in the 2022-23 rainy season substantially contributed to the current condition of the
building. The deterioration of the building since its last inspection by the Building Official and the extensive
buckling and cracking of flooring and wooden support structures can only be explained by extensive water
damage. While damage from water intrusion likely occurred between 2017 and 2022, the storms in the 2022-
23 season were historically severe, especially as compared to the drought conditions in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
A preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the need for immediate action to stabilize and
demolish the building has been caused by the storms last winter. These same facts support the need to take
action before the rainy season this winter.
The Building Official’s recommendation allows the building owner 30 days to submit a plan and permit
application to stabilize and demolish the building or a study from a licensed California structural engineer to
Page 5 of 97
Page 4 of 5
demonstrate an alternative that will abate the current imminent risk of public harm posed by the property’s
current condition. If the Owner submits a plan and permit application to demolish the hotel, SHPO approval
may be required. If the Owner proposes an alternative, SHPO approval may not be required.
2. Demolition or repair is exempt from environmental review under CEQA because specific actions
have been found by the Building Official to be necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
PRC §21080(b)(4) provides an additional statutory exemption from environmental review under CEQA for
demolition or repair if such work is necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency, There must be a likelihood
of damage to persons or property if the existing condition of the Palace Hotel is not abated by temporary
protective measures followed by demolition or other measures, if capable of timely performance.8
Based on the Building Official’s investigation and opinion,9 the work is necessary to prevent an emergency that
will occur, if the building were to collapse in a way that impacts areas outside the building, including as a result
of rain this winter.10 In the Building Official’s opinion, based on his inspection of the property as reported to the
City Council, there is a likelihood of such damage occurring, unless the measures he is recommending are
taken. Unlike the statutory exemption in PRC §21080(b)(1), the exemption in Subd. (b)(4) does not require
that the damage be caused by a natural disaster, only that the work is necessary to prevent or mitigate an
emergency condition.11
CONCLUSION
The City Council’s approval is not required for the Building Official to take the actions he is proposing under
Sections 116 and 117 of the California Building Code. Given the Palace Hotel’s listing on the National Register
of Historic Places and the many efforts that the City and the Ukiah community have made to preserve this
historic resource, City Staff wanted to present the Building Official’s findings and recommendations to the City
Council and the general public at a City Council meeting and for the City Council to determine whether the
statutory exemptions from environmental review apply to the actions required to abate the existing hazard
posed by the building’s current condition.
The recommendation is for Council to adopt the proposed resolution seen in Attachment 8.
____________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
1. Public Resources Code (“PRC”) §21080(a).
2. PRC §21080(b)(1).
3. UCC §3016.
4. See 14 California Code of Regulations (“CCR”) § 15369.
5. Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code
6. PRC §21080(b)(4).
7. 14 California Administrative Code § 15000 et seq.
8. Western Mun. Water Dist. v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1104, 1113-1114 [statutory exemption for prevention of
emergency applied and exempted from environmental review under CEQA the drilling and operation of two "dewatering" wells, the sole
purpose of which was to pump groundwater from the saturated pressure zone in the aquifer beneath the City of San Bernardino to
prevent subsidence and contamination of drinking water wells.]
9. The Building Official will present his opinions and the factual basis for them during the City Council meeting.
10. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), there is an equal chance of below or above normal
precipitation in Ukiah this winter. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/noaa-releases-2023-2024-winter-predictions/ar-
AA1hoj0k.) A four-month advance prediction by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (“NCAR”) predicts a super El Nino this
winter on a par with the severe El Nino in the 1997-98 winter. (https://news.ucar.edu/132912/ncar-experimental-prediction-system-
calls-super-el-nino-winter.)
11. (See CREED-21 v. City of San Diego (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 488 [emergency repair to a storm drain to prevent future flooding of
private property subject to the exemption from environmental review under PRC §21080(b)(4).]; (County of Ventura v. City of Moorpark
(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 377, 386 [The emergency exemption from environmental review under Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd.
Page 6 of 97
Page 5 of 5
(b)(4), applied to a geologic hazard abatement district's entire beach restoration project].)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution approving the Building Official's recommendations regarding
Palace Hotel property and exemption determinations under Ukiah City Code Section 3016(b)(2) and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: N/A
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Ukiah Valley Fire
Authority, and City Manager's Office
DIVERSITY-EQUITY INITIATIVES (DEI):N/A
CLIMATE INITIATIVES (CI): N/A
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP): GP-A6 - Safety Element
Page 7 of 97
Recorded at request of:
City of Ukiah
When recorded, return to:
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Civic Center
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 07
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH
ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE UKIAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS TO ABATE THE PUBLIC NUISANCE LOCATED AT 272
NORTH STATE STREET (PALACE HOTEL) BY REPAIR OR REMOVAL
AFTER THIRTY(30)DAYS
WHEREAS:
1. On December 21, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-
55, declaring the property located at 272 North State Street in the City of
Ukiah and also known as Mendocino County Assessor's Parcel Number
002-224-13 and the dilapidated hotel building located thereon ("the
Property") a public nuisance and its intent to abate the public nuisance by
repair or demolition ("Resolution of Intent"); and
2. The Notice of Hearing required by Ukiah City Code Section 3303, and a
certified copy of the Resolution of Intent was posted on the Property and
served on the Property owner at the address as shown on the last
equalized Mendocino County assessment role in accordance with Ukiah
City Code Section 3305; and
3. On February 15, 2012, the City Council opened a public hearing in
accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 3306, and considered all
objections or protests, and the testimony from owners, witnesses and
interested parties addressing the proposed removal or repair of the
Property; and
4. After hearing from Eladia Laines and her contractor Norm Hudson, the
City Council continued the public hearing to March 21, 2012, to give Ms.
Laines an opportunity to propose a plan for the abatement of the nuisance
conditions on the Property. At the hearing on March 21 the staff reported
that Ms. Laines had submitted three emails discussing how she intended
to rehabilitate the hotel. Staff stated that the proposals fell short, in staff's
opinion, of presenting a viable plan for the rehabilitation of the hotel and
explained the process for appointing a receiver to undertake
1
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 8 of 97
abatement of nuisance conditions on the property. The Council voted to
continue the hearing to April 18, 2012, and appointed an ad hoc
committee to meet with Ms. Laines where she was expected to clarify title
to the Property and to provide information about stabilizing the roof and
removing debris from inside the hotel. At the April 18, 2012, meeting Ms.
Laines provided a letter from a title company confirming that it was
reviewing documents to clear title and that she had contacted the
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District ("Air Quality District")
for a list of asbestos consultants who would need to assist in obtaining a
demolition permit to remove debris from inside the building. The public
hearing was continued to May 16, 2012 at which time the ad hoc
committee reported on and Ms. Laines described her progress in abating
nuisance conditions on the Property. After hearing from the ad hoc
committee and Ms. Laines, the City Council continued the public hearing
to June 20, 2012, to hear a report from the ad hoc committee and Ms.
Laines on progress in abating the nuisance conditions at the hotel. For
the next 22 months the City Council heard monthly reports from the ad
hoc committee and Ms. Laines on her progress in abating nuisance
conditions at the hotel. During that time Ms. Laines appeared to be
making progress toward abating the nuisance conditions. She obtained
an encroachment permit to place scaffolding within the public right of way
to remove ivy from the Smith Street side of the building and the ivy was
removed. However, by July 18, 2012, she had not obtained a demolition
permit for removal of debris from inside the building, because she had not
gotten an asbestos clearance from the Air Quality District. By December
19, 2012, Ms. Laines had not received a demolition permit. During
this time Ms. Laines did report that plastic sheeting had been placed on
the roof and window openings to reduce water infiltration during the
winter. Subsequently, a demolition permit was issued and some debris
was removed from the building, but at the City Council meeting on June
19, 2013, staff reported that the Air Quality District observed a possible
violation of its Asbestos notification and Release approval, when one of
its inspectors discovered workers sorting through piles of debris without a
required Certified Site Surveillance Technician on site. The Air Quality
District issued a Notice to Comply. At the July 17, 2013, City Council
meeting, staff reported that debris removal has been slow and methodical
and in apparent compliance with the Air Quality District asbestos
demolition/renovation clearance. Debris removal was to take place in
three phases. At the August 21, 2013, City Council meeting, staff reported
that Phase I had been completed and Ms. Laines was discussing Phase II
with the Air Quality District. At the October 16, 2013, City Council meeting
staff reported that debris removal had far exceeded the work approved for
Phase I and the scope of the approved demolition permit. The contractor
was directed to receive the necessary clearance from the Air Quality
District and an additional demolition permit from the City before
performing additional work. The City's building official also reiterated his
strong concern about immediately repairing the roof. At the December 18,
2013, City Council meeting, staff reported that the Air Quality District had
approved a Phase II debris removal plan and on December 10, 2013, the
Building Official issued a demolition permit for Phase II debris removal. At
the January 14, 2014, City Council meeting, staff reported that they were
2
Page 9 of 97
alerted on December 27, 2013, that Air Quality district inspector had observed
uncertified workers performing asbestos removal in violation of the District-
approved Revised Asbestos Removal Plan for Phase II. At its February 19,
2014, meeting the City Council was informed that Cal OSHA had red-tagged the
Property to prevent any workers from entering the building based on Cal
OSHA testing which detected asbestos at unsafe levels. A further report on
obtaining Cal OSHA approval to continue asbestos removal and abatement was
made to the City Council on March 14, 2014. On April 16, 2014, the City Council
considered a resolution ordering the Public Works Director to abate the nuisance
conditions on the property not sooner than thirty (30) days from the adoption of
the resolution. The City Council also considered entering a retainer agreement
with Cota Cole to represent the City in a proceeding under Health and Safety
Code Section 17980.7 to appoint a receiver to abate the nuisance conditions
on the property. After hearing from Ms. Laines and her contractor, Norm
Hudson, the City Council agreed to continue the hearing until June 4, 2014, to
give Ms. Laines time to obtain a termination of a Cal OSHA cease and desist
order, barring workers from the building due the presence of asbestos. On
June 4, the Council learned that Ms. Laines has not obtained a termination of
the Cal OSHA cease and desist order. The Council directed staff to propose a
Compliance Schedule for the abatement of the nuisance conditions at the
Palace Hotel. Staff returned with a proposed compliance schedule at the June
18, 2014, City Council meeting. After hearing from the contractor, Norm
Hudson, the Council directed staff to consult with Mr. Hudson on revisions to the
Compliance Schedule and return to the City Council at its August 6, 2014,
meeting with a revised schedule. Staff consulted with Mr. Hudson, but he did not
recommend any changes to the proposed schedule. However, the dates for
complying with the first two milestones on the schedule had already passed
by August 6. At that meeting the City Council approved the Compliance
Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and continued the hearing to
September 3, 2014, to determine, if Ms. Laines had complied with the first three
milestones on the schedule, which are:
Milestone Deadline Evidence of
Compliance
Secure hotel structure August 20, 2014 Inspection by Building
from unauthorized Official
Enter a written contract August 27, 2014 Planning Director's
Contract") with receipt of copy of fully
Bluewater executed Contract and
Environmental Services documents from the
to perform a work plan bank showing that (1)
approved by Cal OSHA the escrow account is
and MCAQMD to abate opened, including the
asbestos contamination account number
in the hotel and open 2) the balance in the
escrow account with a account and (3) the
federally or state funds in the account
chartered bank with may only bewithdrawn
sufficient funds to pay to pay amounts due
3
Page 10 of 97
Submission of work September 2, 2014 Evidence of transmittal
Cal OSHA and OSHA and MCAQMD
County Air Quality copy of plan filed with
Management District Planning Director
MCAQMD)
The Compliance Schedule was sent to Ms. Laines by registered mail,
return receipt requested and returned to the City unopened. On August 8,
2014, the Compliance Schedule was emailed to Ms. Laines. In an
August 28, 2014, email from Ms. Laines local representative Pinky
Kushner, Ms. Laines was quoted as acknowledging receipt of the
Compliance Schedule.
On or before August 20, 2014, the Building Official learned from Norm
Hudson that he was not currently performing as Ms. Laines' contractor.
The Building Official inspected the building on August 20 and found that the
building was not secure. On Sunday, August 24, Ms. Laines emailed
Councilmember Scalmanini that plywood had been attached to two
openings in the Palace Hotel. On August 25, Council member Scalmanini
forwarded the email to the Planning Director. The Building Official inspected
the building on August 25 and determined that the two openings were
adequately secured, but the ground floor door on the Smith Street side of
the building had not been secured, nor had a number of windows/openings.
On August 25, the Planning Director notified Ms. Laines of the Building
Official's findings. The email notified Ms. Laines that the Building Official
was available to meet with her to discuss how to properly secure the
building and gave her the Building Official's contact information. She left
him a voice mail message on August 27 that she would have the
remaining points of access to the building secured on August 27. The
Planning Director emailed Ms. Laines that the Building Official would
inspect the building in the afternoon on August 27 and reminded her that
under the Compliance Schedule she was required to submit to the
Planning Director on August 27 a fully executed contract with Bluewater
Environmental Services to abate asbestos contamination in the building
and documents from a federally or state chartered bank showing that an
escrow account has been opened, including the account number, and the
balance of the account, and evidence that the funds in the account will
only be used to pay amounts due under the contract with Bluewater. These
conditions were based on letters from Ms. Laines presented to the City
Council at its June 18, 2014, meeting that she was securing funds for the
asbestos abatement and that Blue Water could complete the work in 3-6
weeks, once it and Ms. Laines entered a contract and payment for its
services was secured.
The Building Official inspected the exterior of the building on August 27,
2014 and found that most of the doors and openings had been
adequately secured against unauthorized entry. However, he remained
concerned about the window on the Smith Street side of the building
because it had 1/
4" plywood instead of%" and was not secured tightly. He
4
Page 11 of 97
also could not tell if the upstairs windows on the south side of the building
had been secured because they were not visible from the street. The
Planning Director emailed the owner on August 27th and informed her of
these concerns and requested that she contact the Building Official
and allow him to tour the building so that a comprehensive assessment
could be made as to whether or not the building has been adequately
secured against unauthorized entry.
On September 5, 2014, staff was alerted by a citizen that a door on the
ground floor was wide open and it look as though the building had been
broken into. The Building Official inspected the building and the building
and observed damage and concluded that the building had been broken
into. On September 8, 2014, staff was alerted by the owner that the
building had again been broken into. On September 12, 2015, staff
emailed the owner requesting cooperation in performing a comprehensive
tour of the building and developing a strategy for securing it against
unauthorized entry. In a September 15, 2014 email, the owner expressed
her opinion that the building was adequately secure.
On November 5, 2014, Cal OSHA approved the asbestos removal work
plan and the owner's indicated that work would begin in early December.
On December 18, 2014, the owner indicated that work was delayed and
that they anticipate "a start of staging shortly." At the City Council meeting
on January 7, 2015, staff reported to the City Council that the required
permits for the asbestos removal had not been applied for and the work
had not started. As of January 13, 2015, the required permits had not
been applied for and staff had not heard from the owner or asbestos
removal contractor.
As of January 13, 2015, the plastic on the windows remained torn and
tattered, and photos taken on December 12, 2014, and submitted to the
City Council on December 17, 2014, show that the plastic on the roof
was similarly still torn and tattered. The windows and roof were in this
condition during heavy rains in December 2014, resulting in substantial
additional intrusion of water into the building.
On December 18, 2014, staff received a copy of a Preliminary Structural
Evaluation, prepared by LACO Associates under contract with the
potential receiver that the City may request the court to appoint. The
engineer did not enter the building. His work consisted of a detailed
review of all past structural reports and exterior observations of the
structure. This evaluation identified a number of concerns, one of which
was the cracking in the northeast corner of the building at the intersection
of North State Street and Smith Street. The report stated that the cracks
were apparently the result of a window being added sometime in the
past without an adequate lintel being installed above it. The masonry
above this area is acting as "a gravity support arch...and the resultant
force is pushing the easterly wall of the building towards North State
Street." The report recommends that, at a minimum, "this condition
should be repaired by restoring the vertical support of the masonry above
the added window opening" and that "additional steel strapping or
other ties may be required to tie the separated portion together, based
5
Page 12 of 97
on conditions discovered during construction."
In a follow-up conversation with the engineer who prepared the Evaluation,
staff inquired about the urgency of this condition of the building and
the engineer responded that in his opinion, it "should be repaired or
stabilized as soon as possible."
On December 16, 2014, Staff sent a letter to the owner urgently requesting
that she: 1) Secure the entire building against unauthorized entry to the
satisfaction of the City's Building Official; 2) Secure the windows with
water tight material to prevent further rainwater intrusion; 3) Repair or
replace the roof to prevent further rainwater intrusion; 4) Arrange for a
licensed structural engineer to inspect the building, particularly the
northeast corner to determine its structural integrity and whether or not
there is an immediate need for repairs to prevent an imminent threat of
structural failure and submit a written report from the engineer to the
Planning Department. If immediate repairs are necessary, the letter
requested the owner to secure the required permit and complete the
necessary repairs; 5) Submit to the Planning Department a copy of the
contract with Bluewater Environmental Services and evidence that an
escrow account has been established with the funds needed to fund the
asbestos removal project; and 6) Secure the required permits and
remove the asbestos from the building. In a December 19, 2014 email,
the owner indicated she would like to discuss the letter. As of January
13, 2015, the owner had not contacted staff to discuss the letter and none
of the items requested in the letter had been accomplished; and
5. Based on the evidence presented and the records of the Ukiah Planning
and Building Departments and the monthly reports to the Palace Hotel
Nuisance Abatement Ad Hoc Committee and the full City Council, the City
Council finds that:
A. The Property contains one dilapidated hotel structure of
approximately 60,000 square feet, and consists of three stories.
The original hotel, constructed in 1891 contains unreinforced
masonry walls. A later addition, constructed in the 1920's,
contains reinforced concrete walls. The hotel was last occupied
more than 20 years ago and has since remained vacant, boarded
up and unheated.
B. The 2002 Point 2 Structural Engineers Seismic Analysis of the
building revealed that the perimeter unreinforced masonry walls
of the older portions of the building were found to be deficient to
adequately support the vertical and probable earthquake loads of
the region. The mortar shear tests determined the unreinforced
masonry walls could not sustain minimum loads without failure,
and that although they are not necessary for the stability of the
overall structure, the parapets presented a very real falling hazard
during a seismic event.
6
Page 13 of 97
C. An inspection of the Property by the City Building Official and
Fire Marshal on May 26, 2011, determined that the building on
the Property constitutes a public nuisance. As set forth in more
detail in the letter to the Property owner from David Willoughby,
Building Official, dated September 26, 2011, attached here to as
Exhibit A: (1) The hotel building is an unoccupied, unsafe
structure in a dilapidated condition that has deteriorated wood,
visible dry rot, broken windows, mold, deteriorated flooring and
floor supports, deteriorated ceilings and roof supports, significant
water damage that is beginning to compromise the structural
integrity of the building; (2) the structure is not adequately
protected against water intrusion and will continue to deteriorate
in its present condition; (3) the structure is not adequately
protected against unauthorized entry and as a result, trespassers
have deposited garbage and trash in the structure, which poses a
threat to public health and safety; (4) there is evidence that the
building has been occupied by homeless persons; and (4) The
existing fire sprinkler system has not been properly maintained,
has fallen into disrepair as described in the attached Exhibit A.
D. Over the 35 months since the City Council commenced its
hearing under Ukiah City Code Section 3306, Ms. Laines placed
plastic sheeting over the roof and windows and removed some
debris from inside the building. In removing lathe and plaster on
all three floors of the hotel, Ms. Laines caused asbestos to
become intermingled with other debris which created an unsafe
working environment, culminating in Cal OSHA barring all debris
removal until it approved a plan that complies with its workplace
safety rules. Despite promises to commence asbestos removal
first in October, then in December, the owner has not applied for
a building permit required to commence the removal process, all
of the windows in the building on the second and third floors are
uncovered and the plastic sheeting on the roof no longer provides
any protection against water intrusion. Heavy rains in December
have increased water intrusion. The owner has failed to comply
with any of the requirements in the Compliance Schedule
adopted by the City Council and has not made satisfactory
progress toward abating the nuisance conditions or presenting
and following a viable plan for the full abatement of the nuisance
conditions on the Property. Moreover, this unacceptably slow and
erratic progress follows over 20 years of inaction during which the
Palace Hotel remained vacant, in deteriorating condition, creating
blight in the City's historic downtown, and inhibiting its
revitalization. These facts convince the City Council that giving
Ms. Laines additional time to abate the conditions is unlikely to
result in abatement within a reasonable or even foreseeable time
frame.
E. The conditions on the Property continue to violate section 116
of the California Building Code for dangerous buildings because
the dilapidated hotel is unsecured and, therefore, unsafe; and the
7
Page 14 of 97
structure is unsanitary because of the presence of debris remains.
The conditions have actually been made worse and more time
consuming and expensive to abate by the removal of lathe and
plastic performed during the time this matter has been pending
before the City Council.
F. The dilapidated hotel on the Property constitutes a public
nuisance as defined in Ukiah City Code section 3300 and Health
and Safety Code Section 17920; the conditions of the property
violate Sections 1.14, 3.24, and 904 of Division 1, Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations; California Building Code section
901.6.1; and California Fire Code section 506.1, because the fire
sprinkler system has not been adequately maintained, and
emergency access keys that operate the locks on the property
have not been provided in the knox box; and
6. Despite repeated efforts to gain voluntary compliance with the applicable
codes and ordinances, the property owner has failed to make satisfactory
progress in cleaning up and maintaining the Property, repairing and
securing the hotel structure and otherwise in abating the nuisance
conditions on the Property; and
7. The City Council overrules all objections and protests to the proposed
abatement of the nuisance conditions on the Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The Ukiah Department of Public Works is hereby ordered and directed to
abate the public nuisance located at 272 North State Street (APN 002-224-
13) as described in this resolution. The Public Works Director is directed to
seek the appointment of a receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 17980.7, if he determines that the property Owner or its authorized
agent has failed to meet without good cause a compliance deadline in the
Compliance Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. "Good cause" means an
event beyond the reasonable control of the Owner, including governmental
action, war, riot or civil commotion, fire, natural disaster, or any other cause
which could not with reasonable diligence be foreseen, controlled or
prevented by the Owner. If a receivership is terminated without successfully
abating said conditions, the Public Works Director is directed to seek further
authority from the City Council before taking any other actions to repair or
remove the hotel structure; and
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution
to the County Recorder of Mendocino County for recordation.
8
Page 15 of 97
PASSED AND ADOPTED on February 4, 2015, by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Mulheren, Doble, Brown, Scalmanini, Mayor CraneNoes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Douglas Crane, Mayor
ATTEST:
iGG G/"J
Ca by awadly, Deputy ity Clerk
9
Page 16 of 97
Exhibit A
t ^
1 f(
City of TIrciah
Eladia Laines/Leddy and Michael Leddy
PO Box 1309
Sausalito,CA 94966
Via Certified Mail
September 26,2011
Subject: NOTICE OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDING
Location of Violation: Throughout the building
Address: 272 N.State St. (The Palace Hotel)
APN: 002-224-13
Owner: Qestex LTD/Ms. Laines-Leddy and Mr.Mike Leddy
Dear Eladia Laines-Leddy and Mr.Mike Leddy
According to the Mendocino County Assessor's Office you are the record owner of the
property listed above.
On May 18,• 2011, an Inspection Warrant was obtained for the Palace Hotel. An
inspection of the building was performed on May 26, 2011. During the inspection the
following violations of Ukiah Municipal Code, California Building Code, and California
Health and Safety Code were observed:
1. Water intrusion is evident in the basements at the exterior walls and at
intersection of the floor/ceiling and the exterior wall.
2. The roof is leaking in many locations.The water entering the building from the
failing roof is making its way all the way down through the building and
affecting a large part of the structure because of this. This condition was
occurring when I performed an inspection two years ago and has been going on
for many years prior to that. Work was done on the roof to correct it, however
it appears that the condition was not fixed and/or the maintenance has not been
kept up since the repairs were made. Due to the water intrusion problem over
the years,the structure is continuing to degrade.
3. A bathroom window on the southwest portion of the building at the second •
floor above Patrona's Restaurant roof is open. The opening is boarded up;
however,water is able to get into the building at this point.
4. Most of the windows are broken and boarded up which still allows water to get
into the building.
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH,CA 95482-5400
Phone#(707)463-6200 Fax#(707)463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com
Pg. 1
Page 17 of 97
5. The roof has large splits and patches that have come loose and there are vent
holes, skylights and other penetrations through the roof that are missing covers
allowing water into the building. Also, some of the roofing on the parapet wall
is missing.
6. The Ivy vine growing on the exterior of the building is degrading the brick and
mortar as well as adding additional loads to an unreinforced masonry building.
7. The inspectors test drain valve for the automatic fire suppression system is
inoperable.
8. There are no fire sprinklers installed in the large walk-in freezer.
9. Two sprinklers are painted and inoperable in the small room that is located at
the southeast corner of the building facing State St.
10.The automatic fire suppression system is required to be electrically monitored.
Our inspection reveals that it is not being electronically monitored.
11.The emergency access key security box(Knox box)is not present.
According to Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety code, due to the
general dilapidated condition, lack of maintenance as noted above, defective or
deteriorated flooring or floor supports, ceilings, and roof supports, and faulty weather
protections this structure is declared to be a substandard building.
According to Division 3, Chapter 10, Section 3300 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, "All
buildings or structures which are structurally unsafe, or are partially destroyed by fire, or
are dilapidated from old age, neglect, decay or other causes within the City, which
constitute a fire menace or are dangerous to human life, or a likely resort for vagrant or
dissolute persons, may be declared a nuisance by the City Council of the City and
thereafter abated as herein provided."
According to Division 3 Chapter 11, Section 3402 of the Ukiah Municipal Code,"It shall
be unlawful, and it is herby declared to be a public nuisance, for any person owning,
leasing, occupying, or having charge of any commercially zoned business or
commercially zoned property within the city of Ukiah,to maintain such premises in such
a manner that any one or more of the conditions or activities described in the following
subsections are found to exist:"The applicable subsections include:
A. Any violation of this code.
C. Buildings or structures which are partially destroyed, abandoned or permitted
to remain in a state of partial construction for more than six(6)months,or beyond
any period of extension,after the issuance of a building permit.
F. Broken or cracked windows, windows boarded up with unpainted materials
attached to the exterior of the building, or unattractive products adhered
to/covering the inside of the window, unless the structure is undergoing a
remodeling project. The property owner can have thirty(30)to ninety(90)days to
correct the problem with the submittal and approval of a reasonable improvement
strategy/plan.
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH,CA 95482-5400
Phone#(707)463-6200 Fax#(707)463-6204 Web Address:www.cityofukiah.com
Pg.2
Page 18 of 97
G. Overgrown or dead, decayed or hazardous vegetation which: 3.) constitutes a
blighted appearance and 4.)constitutes a fire hazard as determined by the city Fire
Marshal.
H. Building exterior, roofs, landscaping, grounds, walls, retaining and crib walls,
fences, or driveways which are defective,broken, torn, cracked, dilapidated, or in
other similar blighted conditions. If that condition is readily visible from any
public street or adjacent parcel of property and is unsightly so as to constitute a
blighted condition detrimental to the property values in the immediate
surrounding area or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare.
P. Vegetation overgrowth which encroaches into,over or upon any public right of
way including, but not limited to, streets, alley, or sidewalks, so as to constitute
either a danger to the public safety or property or any impediment to public travel.
U. Any other condition declared by any state, county, or city statute, code or
regulation to be a public nuisance.
X. Any dangerous, unsightly, or blighted condition which is detrimental to the
health,safety or welfare of the public.
Y. Any condition recognized in law or in equity as constituting a public nuisance.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you must abate the violations by taking the
following steps within the time noted below from the date this notice is served upon
you:
1. Submit a building permit application, fees, plans and documents for the repairs to
the roof and repairs to the automatic fire sprinkler system required as noted above
within thirty(30)days from the date of this notice;and
Complete the repairs needed on the roof, windows and exterior walls so
that the building is waterproof and complete the repairs and monitoring of the
automatic fire suppression system including the installation of the Knox Box
within sixty(60)days from the date of this notice; and
Remove the Ivy vines growing on the building within ninety (90) days
from the date of this notice;and
Submit a building permit application, fees, plans and documents for the
restoration of this building within four(4)months from the date of this notice;and
Provide that the permit is issued within eight (8) months from the date of
this notice; and
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH,CA 95482-5400
Phone#(707)463-6200 Fax#(707)463-6204 Web Address:www.cityofukiah.com
Pg.3
Page 19 of 97
Provide that the building permit is finaled (final inspection) and a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued within two (2) years from the date of this
notice.
Or
2. Submit a building/demolition permit application with all required information,
plans, fees, and documents for the demolition of the building within thirty (30)
days from the date of this notice;and provide all required information and fees for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act within thirty(30)days
from the day formally requested by the City; and
Complete the demolition of the building within six (6) months from the
date of the issuance of the building/demolition permit.
If you have not abated the violations within the time limits set above and by taking the
actions described above, the City will take enforcement action as authorized by law
which may include any or all of the following: (1) issuance of a citation for violation of
Cal. Health & Safety Code §17995 (which makes violation of the building code a
misdemeanor punishable for a first offense by a fine of$1,000, six months in the county
jail or by both a fine and imprisonment with the fine increasing to $5,000 for a second or
subsequent violation); (2)filing a civil action to enjoin the violation as a public nuisance.
In a civil action you may become liable for the City's attorneys' fees in bringing the
action; and (3) abatement of the violations through a resolution and assessment of costs
against the property through a lien.
The Palace Hotel has been unoccupied for over fifteen years,has fallen into a dilapidated
condition, and now represents a public nuisance. Efforts to correct violations in the past
have been marginally successful and the building has continued to degrade into its
current dilapidated and unsafe condition. The building has become a significant eyesore
in the historic downtown, and conflicts with the City's plans to revitalize the downtown
and promote positive economic development. The time has come for the violations to be
once and for all fully and successfully abated and the building restored and put to
productive use or, as owner of the building,you could propose to demolish the structure.
We are available to work with you to resolve the Palace Hotel dilemma. You can contact
me Monday through Thursday at(707)467-5718 to discuss this correspondence.
THIS IS THE ONLY FORMAL NOTICE THE CITY WILL PROVIDE BEFORE
TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
Sincerely, I! •
David Willoughby
Building Official
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH,CA 95482-5400
Phone#(707)463-6200 Fax#(707)463-6204 Web Address:www.cityofukiah.com
Pg.4
Page 20 of 97
cc: David Rapport,City Attorney
Sage Sangiacomo,Assistance City Manager
Charley Stump,Director,Planning and Community Development
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH,CA 95482-5400
Phone#(707)463-6200 Fax#(707)463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com
Pg.5
Page 21 of 97
EXHIBIT B
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
Milestone Deadline Evidence of Compliance
1.Obtain required building and April 21, 2015 The following correspond to the
encroachment permits and any numbered items in column,
other required permits to headed "Milestone." For
perform Asbestos Abatement example,#1 below is the
Work Plan prepared by evidence to establish compliance
Bluewater Environmental with Milestone#1.The evidence
Services, Inc.and approved by of compliance must be provided
Cal OSHA and Mendocino by the April 21, 2015, deadline.
County Air Quality Management
District(MCAQMD) 1. Copy of issued permits on file
2. Restore fire sprinkler system in City Planning and Building
to full function to the Department.
satisfaction of the Fire Marshall.2. Inspection and approval of
3.Obtain approval by City City Building Official and Fire
Engineer of a written structural Marshall.
assessment of hotel by California 3. Copy of approved structural
licensed structural or civil assessment on file with Planning
engineer for conditions creating and Building Department.
significant threat to structural 4.Written approval from
integrity of building, including structural or civil engineer
any conditions requiring bearing engineer's stamp and
immediate repair and a schedule signature on file with Planning
for completing those immediate and Building Department and
repairs. inspection by City Building
4.Complete any repairs Official and/or City Engineer.
designated in the approved 5. Inspection by City Building
report as requiring immediate Official.
repair in accordance with the 6. Inspection and on-going
schedule in the report. inspections by City Building
5.Secure the entire building Official.
from unauthorized entry to the 7.Written approval by Cal OSHA
satisfaction of the City Building and MCAQMD on file with
Official. Planning and Building
6. Patch roof and cover all Department and inspection by
window,door and other City Building Official.
openings to effectively prevent
water intrusion. Continuously
maintain these measures to
prevent water intrusion until
completion of rehabilitation.
7. Fully perform and complete
the approved Asbestos
1
Page 22 of 97
EXHIBIT B
Abatement Work Plan to the
satisfaction of Cal OSHA and
M CAQM D.
Prepare plan for pre- 90 days from completion of File with Planning Director
development to include: Asbestos abatement 1. Written plan
1. Detail of steps required 2. Signed contracts with
for pre-development design professionals and
2. List of design consultants
professionals and con-3. Schedule for completion
sultants retained 4. Executed loan documents
3. Schedule for complet-5. Evidence of funding
ing steps availability
4. Description of financing
for pre-development
work
Completion of pre- 180 days from submission of Submission of completed
development work Work plan to Planning application for permits
Director required for rehabilitation
work with required
construction plans
Submit engineer's final To be submitted with work File engineer's estimate with
estimate of construction cost, plan Planning Director
certified by California
licensed and qualified design
professional
Secure financing for 90 days from submission of Executed financing
construction and obtain(pay application for required documents, evidence of
for and have issued)the permits funding availability filed with
building permit Planning Director, permit
issued
Completion of seismic retrofit 180days from issuance of Structural work to seismically
building permit retrofit the building
completed. Permit for work
signed off by Building Official
and owner's California
licensed structural engineer.
Completion of roofing to 180 days from issuance of Includes any roof framing,
make watertight building permit sheathing and all roofing
installed. Observed and noted
by the Building Official.
Completion of interior 210 days from issuance of Includes all framing repairs
framing and installation of building permit and changes to the floors,
windows to make exterior ceilings, walls, stairways and
watertight installing windows. Rough
frame is signed off by the
Building Official.
2
Page 23 of 97
EXHIBIT B
Completion of all rough 365 days from issuance of Building is ready for
electrical, mechanical and building permit. insulation and drywall. Rough
plumbing for the building. electrical,mechanical and
plumbing is signed off by the
Building Official.
Completion of Drywall 1 year and 2 months from Sheetrock and firewalls
issuance of building permit. completed and signed off by
the Building Official
Completion of the project 2 years from the issuance of Building permit is signed off
the building permit. and a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued for all
occupancies within the
building.
3
Page 24 of 97
ATTACHMENT 2
CHRONOLOGY FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A) After remaining vacant and unmaintained since 1995, the real property located at 272
North State Street in Ukiah, California, Mendocino County Assessor Parcel No.
(“APN”) 002-224-13, otherwise known as “the Palace Hotel,” (“Subject Property”) had
become a public nuisance and posed a threat to public health and safety. Pursuant to
Ukiah City Code Section 3300 et seq. on or about December 21, 2011, the City Council
adopted a resolution declaring the Subject Property a dangerous building and ordered
its owner to abate the nuisance conditions.
B) After attempting unsuccessfully over period of four years to get its owner to voluntarily
abate the public nuisance condition of the Subject Property, on July 10, 2015, the City
filed Ukiah v. Questex, Ltd, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVPT-
15-66036. Pursuant to the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 568 and Health and Safety
Code § 17980.7, the City requested that the court appoint a receiver to take full and
complete control of the Subject Property and take all steps necessary to rehabilitate the
Subject Property and bring it into compliance with the Health and Safety Code and the
Ukiah City Code.
C) On January 9, 2017, the Court issued its Order (“the Order”) Appointing Mark S. Adams
as the Receiver to take full and complete possession and control of the Subject Property,
develop and implement a plan to rehabilitate the property and borrow funds as necessary
to pay for the cost of the rehabilitation work and secure that debt with a recorded super
priority first lien on the Subject Property for the amount borrowed. The Receiver was
authorized to issue and record Receiver's Certificates of Indebtedness to evidence and
secure such debt, which were to become a first lien on the Subject Property superior to
all preexisting private liens and encumbrances. A form of such a certificate was attached
to the Order as Exhibit A. The Receiver's Certificate was to be issued for such items as
the Court expressly authorized, upon notice and after hearing.
D) Pursuant to the Order, the Receiver borrowed from Jitu Ishwar $438,000 on May 16.
2017 and $139,576 on February 27, 2018, totaling $577,576, which loans were secured
by a Receiver’s Certificate and Deed of Trust recorded with the Mendocino County
Recorder on May 19, 2017, with an amended Deed of Trust recorded on December 22,
2017. After Notice of Default was given on December 12, 2018, the Palace Hotel was
sold to Jitu Ishwar on January 11, 2019, in a non-judicial foreclosure for a bid of
$972,084.94 which included the loans from Mr. Ishwar and unpaid receivership fees
and expenses.
E) On or about January 22, 2019, Mr. Ishwar filed Articles of Organization with the
California Secretary of State establishing Twin Investments, LLC and on January 28,
2019, he conveyed title to the Subject Property to Twin Investments.
Page 25 of 97
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND DISCHARGING COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER
MARK S. ADAMS, SBN 68300 California Receivership Group 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3010 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tel. (310) 471-8181 Fax (310) 471-8180 madams@calreceivers.com Court-Appointed Receiver
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
CITY OF UKIAH, a municipal corporation,
Petitioner,
v.
QUESTEX, LTD., et al.
Respondents.
Case No. SCUK-CVPT-15-66036
(PROPOSED) ORDER DISCHARGING COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER, AND DISMISSING ACTION WHEN CONDITIONS STATED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE MET
Judge: Hon. Ann Moorman Dept.: G
Based on the Stipulation of Parties Re: Approving Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
and Discharging Receiver dated March 21, 2022 (“Stipulation”) and good cause appearing
therefor, the Court hereby enters its order as follows
1.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation are
approved, and their content and the actions described therein are hereby approved and ratified.
Receiver Mark Adams, (“Receiver”) appointed by court order, filed January 9, 2017, for the
property located at 272 North State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482 (APN 002-224-13) (“Property”) is
discharged as provided herein.
2.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that effective upon satisfaction of the conditions
stated in the Sections 2, 3.a. 3.b and 4 of the Settlement Agreement, the receivership estate is
terminated, and the Receiver is formally discharged of all further duties, liabilities, and
responsibilities in this matter.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 26 of 97
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND DISCHARGING COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all acts, transactions, and actions of the Receiver,
California Receivership Group and their counsel herein for the receivership period are
confirmed, ratified and approved. This discharge order is res judicata as to any claim that may
have been brought or could be brought by any Party or non-Party person or entity against the
Receiver, California Receivership Group, Petitioner City of Ukiah (“Petitioner”), Twin
Investments, LLC, current owner of the Property (“Owner”) arising out of the establishment or
administration of the Receivership.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver is hereby discharged from all
further duties, liabilities, and responsibilities as Receiver herein upon satisfaction of the
conditions stated in the Sections 2, 3.a. 3.b and 4 of the Settlement Agreement.
4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all further liability on any bonds heretofore
filed by the Receiver is hereby released and the sureties exonerated thereon.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon discharge the court retains jurisdiction
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 to enforce the Settlement
Agreement. Notwithstanding dismissal of the action , the prevailing party in an action to enforce
the Settlement Agreement shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and other recoverable
costs as determined by the court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all receivership certificates, deeds of trust,
liens, mechanics liens, notices of lis pendens, and other interests in the Property, recorded in the
Official Records of Mendocino County against the Property prior to January 11, 2019 and
recorded before or after said date in connection with or as a result of the administration of the
receivership, except the 2019 Deed of Trust and lis pendens providing notice of the receivership
proceedings, which are subject to Section 3(d) and 4 of the Settlement Agreement, are hereby
extinguished and removed from the chain of title to the Property. Notice of this provision of this
order, attached hereto as Exhibit A, may be recorded by Petitioner, City of Ukiah with the
Mendocino County Recorder.
7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
17980.7, the Court retains jurisdiction for 18 consecutive months from the date of this order to
Page 27 of 97
reinstate the receivership,unless escrow has closed under the Purchase and Sale Agreement as
contemplated by the Letter of Intent,approved the Court in its sealed order.If said escrow has
not closed and the Purchase and Sale Agreement is terminated,not later than 15 months from
said date,Petitioner and Owner shall submit reports to the Court on the condition of the Property,
and the status of its rehabilitation.
The status hearing currently set for May 9,2022 is hereby vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
'4/5/2022 .DATED:am WWW
Honorable Ann Moorman
Judge of the Superior Court
-1-
[PROPOSED[ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION,SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
AND DISCHARGING COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER Page 28 of 97
EXHIBIT A
Page 29 of 97
ASESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 002-224-13
No fee pursuant to Government Code Section 6103; the value is less than $100.00
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on March __, 2022, in City of Ukiah v. Questex Ltd., et
al, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. SCUK-CVPT-66036 (“the Action”), the Court
signed and filed its Order Approving Settlement Agreement, Discharging Court-Appointed
Receiver, and Dismissing Action When Conditions Stated in the Settlement Agreement Are
Met (“the Order”). A true and accurate copy of the Order is attached hereto.
Section 6 of the Order affects the real property located at 272 North State Street, Ukiah, CA
95482 located at 272 North State Street, Ukiah, CA 95482, also known as Mendocino County
Assessor’s Parcel Number 002-224-13 (the “Property”) and described as follows:
Parcel One:
Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of State of Smith Streets in said City, and running
thence Westerly on the Southerly line of Smith Street, 200 feet, more or less, to the
Southeasterly corner of Smith and School Street, 60 feet; thence at right angles Easterly 200
feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of State Street; thence Northerly on the Westerly line of
State Street, 60 feet to the place of beginning.
Parcel Two:
Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of State Street in Block 14 of Ukiah City, 60 feet
Southerly from the Southwest corner of the intersection of Smith and State Street; thence
Southerly along the Westerly lien of State Street, 40 feet to the Northeast corner of land of
A.R. Steiert; thence at right angles Westerly along the North line of land of A.R. Steiert, 80
feet; thence continuing Westerly on the same course 120 feet to the East line of School Street;
thence Northerly along the East line of School Street, 40 feet; thence at right angles 200 feet to
the place of beginning.
Parcel Three:
EXHIBIT A - 1
City Clerk
City of Ukiah
Page 30 of 97
EXHIBIT A - 2
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Lot formerly owned by J.R. Mathews in Block
14 of the City of Ukiah; thence Northerly at right angles to the North line of Standley Street, 25
feet to the South line of Parcel 2 hereinabove described; thence Westerly along the South line
of said Parcel 2, 24 feet; thence Southerly at right angles to Standley Street, 25 feet to the
Northwest comer of said Lot formerly owned by J.R. Mathews, 24 feet to the place of
beginning.
Said Section 6 provides that all receivership certificates, deeds of trust, liens, mechanics liens,
notices of lis pendens, and other interests in the Property, recorded in the Official Records of
Mendocino County against the Property prior to January 11, 2019, and any documents recorded
before or after January 11, 2019 in connection with or as a result of the administration of the
receivership, are here by extinguished and removed from the chain of title to the Property, except
for the August 9, 2019, Court approved a Receiver’s Certificate and a deed of trust in the amount
of $120,000 in favor of California Receivership Group as beneficiary (“2019 Deed of Trust”)
and the notice of lis pendens providing notice of the receivership proceedings, which are subject
to being removed from the chain of title to the Property pursuant to Sections 3(d) and 4 of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Order authorizes this Notice to be filed in the Official Records of the County of Mendocino.
Dated:
___________________
David J. Rapport, City Attorney
Attorney for Petitioner City of Ukiah
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Mendocino
On ______________ before me, _____________________ , Notary Public, personally appeared
David J. Rapport, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s}, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who
signed the document to which this certificate is attached,
and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that
document.
Page 31 of 97
EXHIBIT A - 3
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Signature) _____________________ (Seal)
Page 32 of 97
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Mendocino;my business address is 405 West Perkins Street,
Ukiah,California 95482.lam over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the foregoing action.
On March 30,2022,I served the below listed document described as:
STIPULATION To APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,To
DISCHARGE COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER,AND To DISMIss ACTION
WHEN CONDITIONS STATED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARE
MET;(PROPOSED)ORDER
By the following described below:
X by mail on the following party(ies)in said action,in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure §1013a(3),by placing a true copy thereof enclosed 1n a sealed envelope 1n a
designated area for outgoing mail,addressed as set forth below Mail placed 1n that
designated area is given the correct amount of postage and is deposited that same day,
in the ordinary course of business,in a United States mailbox in the City of Ukiah,
California.
by personally delivering a true copy thereof,in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure §1011,to the person(s)and at the address(es)set forth below.
by overnight delivery on the following party(ies)in said action,in accordance with
Code of Civil Procedure §1013(c),by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed
envelope,with delivery fees paid or provided for,and delivering that envelope to an
overnight express service carrier as defined in Code of Civil Procedure §1013(c).
X by electronic mail pursuant to stipulation as follows.
James King Sam Emerson
Stephen F.Johnson Scott E.Huber
Michaelyn P.Wipf Sean D.De Burgh
Zachary S.Stephens COTA COLE &HUBER,LLP
MANNON,KING,JOHNSON &WIPF LLP 2261 Lava Ridge Court
200 North School Street,Suite 304 Roseville CA 95661
PO Box 419 shuber@cotalawf1rm.com
Ukiah CA 95482 Sdeburgh@cotalawfirm.com
steve@mkilex.com semerson@cotalawfirm.com
Mark S Adams,Esq.Robert Green
California Receivership Group GREEN 7 NOBLIN,PC.
3435 Ocean Park Blvd,Suite 107 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle,Suite 101
Santa Monica,CA 90405 Larkspur CA 94939
madams@calreceivers.com rsg@classcounsel.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 33 of 97
Courtesy Copies:Roger J.Brothers
Brothers &Smith
Todd Schapmire 2033 N.Main St.#720
c/o 101 Property Management Walnut Creek CA 94596
390 W.Standley Street rbrothers@brotherssmithlaw.com
Ukiah CA 95482
toddschapmire@gmail.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on March 30,2022.
5M0 IfEr'tc'ka D'fincafi
PROOF OF SERVICE
9
67
0
0
11
2
3
4
5
lO
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 34 of 97
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
Phone # (707)463-6200 Fax# (707)463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com
TWIN INVESTMENTS LLC
494 KENWOOD DR
UKIAH CA 95482
DATE POSTED: ___________
Subject: NOTICE OF VIOLATION –
HAZARDOUS CONDITION - PUBLIC NUISANCE
Location of Violation: Entire Property
Address: 272 N STATE ST
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 002-224-13
Owner: TWIN INVESTMENTS LLC
Attention: JITU ISHWAR, LLC Member
Dear Owner:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 09/29/23, an inspection of the interior and exterior of
the above-referenced property was performed with the owner representative present. The
inspection team was made up of the Chief Building Official, the Fire Chief, and two
Battalion Chiefs. The determinations made by the inspection team are as follows.
1. The building at 217 N State St. is structurally unsound, deteriorated, and
constitutes a menace to public safety. Since the City Council findings adopted by
Resolution No. 2015-07, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this
Notice, the condition of the building has deteriorated to such an extent that it
poses an imminent risk of collapse endangering life, limb, health, and property of
the public.
2. The condition of the above property has been deemed a public nuisance due to its
hazardous condition and immediate action is necessary to abate the nuisance to
protect public safety.
As a result of the above-described conditions, the historical significance of this building
cannot impede the protection of public safety which is of paramount importance. You
must take all necessary steps to ensure the safe and timely demolition or stabilization of
this building.
In accordance with Section 116.1 of the 2022 California Building Code YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED: that the City of Ukiah is hereby issuing a formal order
requiring you as the property owner and managing member of the owner to initiate
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 35 of 97
300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400
Phone # (707)463-6200 Fax# (707)463-6204 Web Address: www.cityofukiah.com
the demolition or stabilization of the structurally unsound building. Respond to this
notice with a permit application and your proposed plan within 30 days.
If you have not taken steps to abate the violation in the time given above by taking the
actions described above, the City will take enforcement action as authorized by law
which may include any or all of the following: (1) issuance of a citation for violation of
Cal. Health & Safety Code §17995 (which makes violation of the building code a
misdemeanor punishable for a first offense by a fine of $1,000, six months in the county
jail or by both a fine and imprisonment with the fine increasing to $5,000 for a second or
subsequent violation); and (2) filing a civil action to enjoin the violation as a public
nuisance, to recover from you the costs to demolish the building and to take any other
actions necessary to protect public health and safety, to impose the penalties prescribed
by Cal. Health & Safety Code §17995, to prevent you from taking a tax deduction for
interest, expenses, depreciation or amortization arising from your ownership of the
property, or the City can request reinstatement of the receivership recently terminated
and the appointment of a receiver to take possession and control of the property, make all
repairs, impose those costs as a lien on the property and seek to recover any deficiency
from you. In a civil action you may become liable for the City’s attorneys’ fees and costs
in bringing the action. THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE CITY WILL GIVE
BEFORE TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
Sincerely,
Matt Keizer
Chief Code Enforcement Officer
Posted on building
Sent Via: Certified mail
cc: City Attorney
Page 36 of 97
Page 37 of 97
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-2-23
WHEREAS on January 4, 2023, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to
exist throughout California as a result of severe winter storms related to the
Atmospheric River event beginning on December 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS starting around December 27, 2022, this Atmospheric River
event resulted in significant impacts to the State including, but not limited
to, widespread flooding and power outages, downed trees, hazardous
debris flows, mudslides, landslides, swelling of waterways, dam overflows,
and levee failures; and
WHEREAS on January 16, 2023, I signed Executive Order N-1-23 to
further bolster the emergency response to the severe winter storms and
support impacted communities across the State; and
WHEREAS the impacts of this Atmospheric River event, including
widespread flooding and infrastructure damage, have left many residents
out of work; and
WHEREAS on January 8, 2023, I requested a Presidential Emergency
Declaration related to this Atmospheric River event, which was
expeditiously approved by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
WHEREAS on January 12, 2023, I also requested the President issue
an Expedited Major Disaster Declaration related to this Atmospheric River
event, which was again expeditiously approved by President Joseph R.
Biden, Jr., for certain designated counties and types of assistance; and
WHEREAS the State of California and local governments, in
collaboration with the Federal government, continue sustained efforts to
respond to and mitigate the effects of this Atmospheric River event, while
at the same time beginning long term recovery efforts; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8571, I
find that strict compliance with the various statutes and regulations
specified in this Order would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the
effects of this Atmospheric River event.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of
California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State
Constitution and statutes, and in particular, Government Code sections
8567, 8571, and 8627 do hereby issue the following Order to become
effective immediately.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The provisions of Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253(d)
imposing a one-week waiting period for unemployment
insurance applicants are suspended as to all applicants who are
unemployed as a direct result of this Atmospheric River event
who applied for unemployment insurance benefits during the
time period beginning December 24, 2022, and ending on the
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 38 of 97
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor of California
close of business on June 26, 2023, and who are otherwise
elig ible for unemployment insurance benefits.
2. The suspension of statutes identified in Paragraph 1 of Executive
Order N-1-23, issued on January 16, 2023, shall also apply to local
governments, as applicable, to ensure adequate staffing to
appropriately respond to this Atmospheric River event.
3. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of my State of Emergency proclaimed on
January 4, 2023, related to hours-of-service limitations for those
drivers engaged in fuel transportation in support of emergency
relief efforts, will terminate at 11 :59 p.m. on February 1, 2023.
4. Paragraph 10 of my State of Emergency proclaimed on January
4, 2023, related to out-of-state contractors and other utilities
driving their own vehicles to provide mutual assistance for the
restoration of electrical power, is terminated.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be
filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity
and notice be given of this Order.
This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or
benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity,
against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers,
employees, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have
hereunto set my hand and caused
the Great Seal of the State of
California to be affixed t his 31st day
of Janu 2023.
r of California
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY N. WEBER, Ph.D.
Secretary of State
Page 39 of 97
E X E C U T I V E D E P A R T M E N T
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY
WHEREAS on March 1, 2023, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in
13 counties as a result of winter storms that struck California beginning in late
February, and which have continued to significantly impact those 13 identified
counties, as well as several additional counties across California; and
WHEREAS these storms, including an atmospheric river system, are
forecasted to continue through mid-March, and, in addition to previously issued
freeze warnings and frost advisories due to rapidly declining temperatures, the
National Weather Service has issued flood watch warnings in recent days; and
WHEREAS heavy rain, snow, and gusty winds caused by these storms
continue throughout the State, especially in the mountains and foothill regions,
resulting in significant travel impacts and residents being snowed in or stranded;
and
WHEREAS these storms continue to bring significant precipitation,
avalanche and flood concerns, and triggered evacuation warnings; and
WHEREAS these storms continue to damage and force the closure of
federal and state highways and roads, and have also damaged and continue
to threaten critical infrastructure, homes, and buildings; and
WHEREAS these storms, including the forecasted atmospheric river system,
will compound the complexities of recovery in the affected counties that are still
responding and continue to respond to impacts of these storms; and
WHEREAS due to the sustained force and longevity of persistent heavy rain
and snow, there are multiple cumulative and compounding effects which have
already strained local and state resources, and the impacts of these storms will
be exacerbated by the upcoming atmospheric river system; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8558(b), I find
that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist due
to these storms; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8558(b), I find
that the conditions caused by these storms, by reason of their magnitude, are or
are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and
facilities of any single local government and require the combined forces of a
mutual aid region or regions to appropriately respond; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8625, I find
that local authority is inadequate to cope with the magnitude of the damage
caused by these storms; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8571, I find
that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this
Proclamation would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of
these storms.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California,
in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution and
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 40 of 97
statutes, including the California Emergency Services Act, and in particular,
Government Code section 8625, HEREBY PROCLAIM A STATE OF EMERGENCY to
exist in Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Mendocino,
Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Yuba counties.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. All operative provisions contained in my March 1, 2023, State of
Emergency Proclamation are hereby incorporated and applicable, as
appropriate, to Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo,
Lake, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Plumas,
Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Yuba counties as a result of the storms
identified in this and the previous Proclamation.
2. Any fairgrounds the Office of Emergency Services determines suitable
to assist individuals impacted by these storms in the counties identified
in this and the March 1, 2023, State of Emergency Proclamation, shall
be made available to the Office of Emergency Services pursuant to
the Emergency Services Act, Government Code section 8589. The
Office of Emergency Services shall notify the fairgrounds of the
intended use and may immediately utilize the fairgrounds without the
fairground board of directors' approval.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Proclamation be
filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and
notice be given of this Proclamation.
This Proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or
benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the
State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or
any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have
hereunto set my hand and caused
the Great Seal of the State of
California to be affixed this 8th day
of March 2023.
________________________________
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor of California
ATTEST:
________________________________
SHIRLEY N. WEBER, Ph.D.
Secretary of State
Page 41 of 97
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH FINDING STATUTORIALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT BUILDING OFFICIAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION UNDER CBC SECTIONS 116
AND 117 TO REMEDY EMERGENCY CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 272 NORTH STATE STREET, UKIAH, CA 95482 (APN 002-224-13)
WHEREAS:
1.The building located at 272 North State Street, Ukiah, Ca 95482, also known as Mendocino
County Assessor Parcel No. 002-224-13 (“the Palace Hotel”) is registered on the National
Register of Historic Places; and
2.In Resolution 2015-07, the City Council found that the Palace Hotel is a dangerous building and
public nuisance under Ukiah City Code (“UCC”) Section 3300); and
3.Resolution 2015-17 authorized a petition in the Mendocino County Superior Court to appoint a
receiver to abate the dangerous and public nuisance conditions at the Palace Hotel; and
4.The City of Ukiah filed a petition for the appointment of a receiver, but the dangerous and public
nuisance conditions were not abated before the receiver was discharged and the receivership
terminated by court order on April 4, 2023; and
5.Resolution 2015-07 required the matter returned to the City for further instructions, if the
dangerous and public nuisance conditions remained upon termination of the receivership; and
6.Upon inspection of the Palace Hotel on September 29, 2023, by the Building Official, Fire Chief
and two Battalion Chiefs, the Building Official determined that the condition of the Palace Hotel
has deteriorated to such an extent since the adoption of Resolution 2015-17 that it is no longer
stable and poses an imminent risk of damage to persons or property due to its instability; and
7.The Building Official has presented his recommendations for enforcement action to the City
Council; and
8.The City Council as reviewed the information presented by the Building Official at a
special meeting of the City Council’s on November 1, 2023;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of Ukiah hereby finds, determines, and declares
as follows:
1.FINDINGS:
a.The enforcement actions recommended by the Building Official, as stated below, are
statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Public Resources Code 21080(b)(3) as a project
undertaken, carried out, or approved by the City to maintain, repair, restore, demolish,
or replace property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster in a
ATTACHMENT 8
Page 42 of 97
2
disaster-stricken area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the
Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title
2 of the Government Code.
i.While the Palace Hotel has been declared by the City Council to be a
dangerous building and public nuisance since 2015, and many of the
conditions shown in the pictures of the September 29, 2023, inspection by the
City’s Building Official were noted in the earlier inspection on December 17,
2015, the condition at that time did not cause the degree of instability evident
in the inspection on September 29. Water intrusion has and continues to cause
deterioration, but the particularly heavy rains which prompted the Governor to
issue three Proclamation of Emergency in January and March 2023, is the
most recent cause of damage. As a result of that damage the building is no
longer structurally stable, posing an imminent risk of damage to persons and
property in its vicinity.
ii.From the September 29, 2023, inspection as described in the Building Official’s
report to the City Council, this recent deterioration is the result of additional
water intrusion from last winter’s storms which were declared a State of
Emergency in the California Governor’s Executive Order No N-2-23, dated
January 16, 2023, and Emergency Proclamations on March 3 and March 8 for
13 counties, including Mendocino County..
b.The enforcement action recommended by the Building Official is also exempted from
environmental review under CEQA by Public Resources Code Section 21080(B)(4):
Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency.
i.The unstable condition of the Palace Hotel caused by the unreinforced
masonry exterior walls on 2/3 of the structure, the exposure to water intrusion
resulting from the collapsing roof and the loss of internal stability due to
collapsing and buckled floors and cracking and broken lateral wooden support
beams poses a risk of collapse, particularly if this winter brings substantial rain.
ii.The action recommended by the Building Official is necessary to mitigate
existing emergency conditions and future emergencies likely to result from
substantial winter rains and the unstable condition of the structure.
2.While the Building Official has the authority without City Council approval to take the enforcement
actions under Building code Sections 116 and 117, the City Council approves his proposed action.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mari Rodin, Mayor
Page 43 of 97
3
ATTEST:
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk
Page 44 of 97
Palace Hotel Inspection 9/29/2023
SMITH ST Page 45 of 97
SMITH ST SMITH ST
Page 46 of 97
SMITH ST SMITH ST
Page 47 of 97
N SCHOOL ST
SMITH / N SCHOOL ST Page 48 of 97
N SCHOOL ST N SCHOOL ST Page 49 of 97
SCHOOL ST SMITH ST FDC
Page 50 of 97
SMITH ST FDC AND STANDPIPE
Page 51 of 97
SMITH ST FAILING MORTAR THROUGHOUT BUILDING
Page 52 of 97
STATE ST SMITH ST Page 53 of 97
PARAPET COPING
REMOVED FROM
STRUCTURAL FAILURE
STATE ST LEAD GLASS FAILURE STATE ST
Page 54 of 97
STATE ST Page 55 of 97
STRUCTURAL FAILURE AND PARTIAL COLLAPSE OF THE ATRIUM ROOF. LOCATION 1 FLOOR. ROOF FROM APOVE
2ND FLOOR Page 56 of 97
1ST FLOOR: 2ND FLOOR STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 57 of 97
Page 58 of 97
1ST FLOOR LOOKING AT 2ND FLOOR, AT STATE ST SIDE
OF BUILDING. FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE
1ST FLOOR LOOKING AT 1ST FLOOR, AT STATE ST SIDE OF
BUILDING. FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 59 of 97
1ST FLOOR. AT STATE ST SIDE OF BUILDING. BRICK WALL
STRUCTURAL FAILURE
1ST FLOOR LOOKING AT 2ND FLOOR, AT STATE ST SIDE OF
BUILDING. FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 60 of 97
1ST FLOOR BRICK WALL STRUCTURAL FAILURE1ST FLOOR LOOKING THROUGH ATRIUM, FLOOR JOIST
STRUCTURAL FAILURE, AND OPEN TO WEATHER. Page 61 of 97
2ND FLOOR LOOKING AT WEATHER PROOFING FAILURE 2ND FLOOR, FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE, AND ROT
Page 62 of 97
2ND FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED
OPEN FRAMING AT ALL OF
2ND FLOOR
Page 63 of 97
2ND FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED
Page 64 of 97
Page 65 of 97
Page 66 of 97
2ND FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 67 of 97
2ND FLOOR FIRE HAZARD EXPOSED WOOD
Page 68 of 97
2ND FLOOR COLLAPSED ATRIUM FROM ABOVE
Page 69 of 97
Page 70 of 97
3RD FLOOR COLLAPSED ATRIUM FROM ABOVE
3RD STORY
2ND STORY
Page 71 of 97
3RD FLOOR STATE ST SIDE: FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE, AND ROT Page 72 of 97
WALL STUDS BUCKLING FROM STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY ABOVE
Page 73 of 97
3RD FLOOR STATE ST SIDE: FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE, AND ROT Page 74 of 97
WALL STUDS BUCKLING FROM STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY ABOVE
3RD FLOOR STATE ST SIDE: FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE,
AND ROT Page 75 of 97
2nd FLOOR LOOKING AT 3rd FLOOR. FLOOR JOIST STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 76 of 97
3rd FLOOR LOOKING AT 2ND FLOOR ATRIUM. FLOOR JOIST/ROOF STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 77 of 97
3RD FLOOR: OPEN TO WEATHER STRUCTURALLY COMPROMISED FLOOR
Page 78 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 79 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY-ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 80 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY-ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 81 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH ST SIDE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 82 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH/STATE . DRY-ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 83 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH/STATE. DRY-ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 84 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH/STATE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 85 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, SMITH/STATE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 86 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, STATE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 87 of 97
3RD FLOOR UNEVEN AND COMPROMISED, STATE. DRY -ROT FLOOR ALSO COMPROMISED, STRUCTURAL FAILURE Page 88 of 97
Page 89 of 97
1ST FLOOR BRICK WALL STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Page 90 of 97
Page 91 of 97
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 09/29/23, an inspection of the interior and exterior of the above -
referenced property was performed with the owner representative present. The inspection team was
made up of the Chief Building Official, the Fire Chief, and two Battalion Chiefs. The determinations
made by the inspection team are as follows.
1. The building at 272 N State St. is structurally unsound, deteriorated, and constitutes a menace to
public safety. Since the City Council findings adopted by Resolution No. 2015 -07, a true and correct
copy of which is attached to this Notice, the condition of the building has deteriorated to such an extent
that it poses an imminent risk of collapse endangering life, limb, health, and property of the public.
2. The condition of the above property has been deemed a public nuisance due to its hazardous
condition and immediate action is necessary to abate the nuisance to protect public safety.
As a result of the above -described conditions, the historical significance of this building cannot impede
the protection of public safety which is of paramount importance. You must take all necessary steps to
ensure the safe and timely demolition or stabilization of this building.
In accordance with Section 116.1 of the 2022 California Building Code, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED: that the City of Ukiah is hereby issuing a formal order requiring you as the property
owner and managing member of the owner to initiate the demolition or stabilization of the
structurally unsound building. Respond to this notice with a permit application and your
proposed plan within 30 days.
Page 92 of 97
The Chief Building Official recommends issuing a notice under the authority of Sections 116 and 117
of the 2022 California Building Code to the Building owner and its managing member to submit within
30 days after service of the order a plan and application for permits to stabilize and demolish the
hotel structure.
The plan must include interim measures to prevent damage to persons or property and a reasonable
timeline for completing the work. In the alternative, the notice will allow the property owner to
submit a study from a California licensed structural engineer providing an alternative to demolition
that will abate the imminent risk of collapse posed by the structure’s current condition and
applications for the permits required to perform the work recommended by the study.
Staff recommended action as follows:
Page 93 of 97
1
Kristine Lawler
Subject:3a Correspondence Received - Tom Let & Meri Castillo
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Let <tomlet@pacific.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:19 PM
To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com>
Subject: Palace Hotel
Please let the city council know that my wife and I stand for preservaƟon of the Palace Hotel, the one of few historic
buildings that we have here in Ukiah. The current owner of the building needs to know that allowing the Palace to fall
into further disrepair should not be an opƟon.
Tom Let & Meri Cas Ɵllo
1091 W. Standley,
Ukiah
Sent from my iPhone
Page 94 of 97
1
Kristine Lawler
Subject:3a Correspondence Received - Kristin Ohlson
From: K Ohlson <arbusagri@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com>
Subject: Palace Hotel
Because of its historic value to the City, please require a structural analysis done by a qualified engineer on the
condition of the Palace Hotel, before considering any demolition or future plans for the hotel.
Sincerely, Kristin Ohlson
Page 95 of 97
1
Kristine Lawler
Subject:3a Correspondence Received - Betty Lacy
-----Original Message-----
From: BeƩy Lacy <beƩylacymd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Michelle Irace <mirace@cityofukiah.com>
Cc: jimnlacy <jimnlacy@gmail.com>
Subject: Palace Hotel
Hi KrisƟne,
My husband and I have been residents of Ukiah for 29 years. We were so excited by the upswing of support for the
remodeling of the Palace Hotel first in the 90’s, then mid 2000’s, then again about 10 years ago. My father told me he
had visited this amazing Hotel before it was closed. Lucky him. We like seeing historic places remodeled. They add
character to the townships.
At this Ɵme, however, we do not believe the Palace is worthy of any more aƩenƟon or debate. If the hotel has not come
to life in the 29 years that we have been here, how is it possible that this could happen in the foreseeable future? With
construcƟon costs, retrofiƫng, etc…we do not see this as a possibility or a road we should proceed any further down.
The Palace’s ship has sailed. It is Ɵme to start imagining what our town could use in its place.
Thank you,
BeƩy Lacy MD
Page 96 of 97
1
Kristine Lawler
Subject:3a Correspondence Received - James Persky
-----Original Message-----
From: James Persky <jim@mcn.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:50 AM
To: Kris Ɵne Lawler <klawler@cityofukiah.com>
Subject: Palace Hotel
Subject: Request for the DemoliƟon of the Condemned Historic Palace Hotel for Public Safety
Dear Members of the City Council,
I hope this leƩer finds you well. I am wriƟng to express my deep concern regarding the deterioraƟng state of the historic
Palace Hotel in Ukiah. While I recognize the importance of preserving our city's history and heritage, I believe that, in this
parƟcular case, the safety of our community must take precedence.
The Palace Hotel, with its rich history and architectural significance, has long been a symbol of Ukiah's past. However, as
Ɵme has passed, the building has fallen into a state of disrepair, and it has now been condemned due to serious safety
concerns. The decaying structure poses a significant risk to public safety and the surrounding properƟes. There have
been reports of structural instability, the potenƟal for collapsing walls, and a mulƟtude of safety hazards, including
infestaƟons and the risk of fire.
Given these concerns, I respecƞully urge the City of Ukiah to consider the necessity of demolishing the condemned
Palace Hotel. While it is never an easy decision to raze a historic structure, we must prioriƟze the safety and well-being of
our community members. NeglecƟng this issue may lead to tragic consequences, and we cannot afford to put lives at
risk.
I understand that demolishing a historic building is a sensiƟve maƩer and that there may be opposiƟon to such a
decision. To address this concern, I encourage the city to explore all possible avenues for preserving the historical
significance of the Palace Hotel, such as salvaging architectural elements, documenƟng its history, and considering
opƟons for a memorial or plaque to honor its legacy.
In conclusion, the safety of our community should be our top priority, and I believe that demolishing the condemned
Palace Hotel is a necessary step to protect our residents and visitors. I trust that the City of Ukiah will carefully consider
the opƟons and act in the best interests of public safety.
Thank you for your aƩenƟon to this pressing maƩer. I look forward to hearing more about the city's plans for addressing
the safety concerns associated with the Palace Hotel and the steps taken to honor its historical importance.
Sincerely,
James Persky
Page 97 of 97