Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-20 Packet - Special CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Special Adjourned Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 March 20, 2007 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Consideration of and Possible Decision Regarding Petition to Change Place of Use Under City's Appropriative Water Rights Permit NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion of Ahwahnee Water Principles 4. 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. 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 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 16th day of March, 2007. Gail Petersen, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO: 2a MEETING DATE: March 20, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE DECISION REGARDING PETITION TO CHANGE PLACE OF USE UNDER CITY'S APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHTS PERMIT SUMMARY: The City Council continued its last regular meeting on March 7, 2007, to March 20, 2007, to allow staff an opportunity to provide additional information as requested by Councilmembers at the March 7 meeting. The City Council had the following questions and requests: 1. Would changing the points of diversion, as suggested by Barbara Spazek of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District"), rather than including Millview and Willow County Water Districts in the allowed place of use under the City's water rights permit, satisfactorily address the State Water Board's concern that the City and the Districts would violate their current permits, when they furnish water to each other under the emergency intertie agreements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Retain current proposed change in place of use but only if SWRCB approves a permit condition as described under option 1 of Agenda Summary Report for the March 7, 2007, City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reduce proposed area to include only those areas currently served by Millview and Willow with or without condition described under option 1; abandon petition to change place of use, relying instead on Temporary Urgency Change petitions when emergency service is requested or seek approval from the Flood Control District to use Flood Control District permit water for emergency intertie service; share points of diversion with Millview and Willow and limit the change in place of use petition to the City's probable sphere of influence. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: City Council David J. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager, Wagner and Bonsignore, Gary Weatherford Attachment 1- Memorandum from Bob Wagner and Gary Weatherford re: shared points of diversion proposal Attachment 2- Memorandum of Paula Whealen re: change petition processing and timeframes Attachment 3- Maps Approved: '~k~, 7~--~/~ C~dace Horsley, Ci~Manager Agenda Summary Report Page 2 March 20, 2007, City Council meeting 2. Provide additional maps depicting: a. The areas currently served by Millview and Willow, including areas outside the currently allowed places of use under their respective water rights permits and/or licenses; b. The area currently proposed by the City in its petition, pending before the State Water Rights Board, excluding those areas east of the freeway that are currently zoned for agricultural uses; and c. A place of use that only includes areas currently served by the City plus the sphere of influence proposed to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. 3. What impact will the different proposals for changing points of diversion or places of use have on the scope and cost of the Environmental Impact Report CEIR") that would be prepared for these changes. Response:The following information is provided to address these requests from the City Council. 1. Shared points of diversion proposal. Barbara Spazek proposed adding the Millview and Willow diversion facilities (pumps and wells) as additional points of diversion under the City's water rights permit and adding the City's diversion works (Ranney Collector and wells) as diversion points under the water rights permits and licenses of Millview and Willow. The emergency intertie agreements would be amended to provide for wheeling the water from the point of diversion to the allowed place of use under the respective permit or license in specified emergency situations. This proposal would automatically subject the water wheeled from the diversion points under the respective permits and licenses to the limitations in those permits or licenses? The permit itself would not restrict the use of those diversion points to emergencies, unless a condition was proposed which is similar to the one staff has proposed on the change to the place of use allowed under the City's permit. Staff consulted with Bob Wagner of Wagner and Bonsignore and Gary Weatherford, regarding this proposal. They have commented that a procedure exists for requesting the State Water Board to approve this arrangement, but they have raised a number of concerns about addressing the emergency intertie problem in this way. ~ Each permit or license specifies the time when diversions are authorized, the allowed purposes for which the water can be used, the amount of water that can be diverted in cubic feet per second Ccfs") or acre feet per year Cafy"), the allowed points of diversion and the allowed places of use. Agenda Summary Report Page 3 March 20, 2007, City Council meeting Gary Weatherford pointed out that in order to locate a point of diversion the diverter needs to have lawful access to the diversion point. At a minimum, this would require agreements between Millview and the City and Willow and the City consenting to reciprocal access to the points of diversion. Reciprocal rights to use diversion facilities and wheel the emergency water through the other agency's pipes also would need to be created by contract. Staff doesn't know whether Millview or Willow would agree to this arrangement. At this point, Willow has said it will address the emergency intertie problem with urgency change petitions. Undoubtedly, both districts will want to confer with their own water rights experts in deciding whether or not to agree to sharing points of diversion. In any event, this proposal will require revisions to the emergency intertie agreements that are approved by all parties, as pointed out in the attached memorandum from Bob Wagner and Gary Weatherford. (See Attachment 1 .) By contrast, proposing a change in the City's allowed place of use does not require the agreement of either Millview or Willow, and can be pursued independently, regardless of how Millview and Willow decide to address the potential violation of their permits and licenses created by the emergency interties and the emergency intertie agreements. The licenses and permits issued to Millview and Willow are subject to seasonal restrictions which would prevent them from using water from the City's points of diversion, if an emergency occurred during a time of the year, when diversions are not allowed under their respective permits and licenses. However, this same limitation exists, if the City is included in Millview's allowed place of use. This is not a problem for the City in serving Millview or Willow in emergencies, because the City has a year round permit with no similar seasonal restrictions. Finally, the point of diversion proposal does not address future annexations. If the City Council opted to pursue this alternative, it should also revise its petition to change its allowed place of use to include its actual or probable sphere of influence within which it is likely to pursue annexations in the future. Attachment 2 is a memorandum from Paula Whealen of Wagner and Bonsignore stating that the average time for getting a change in the allowed place of use approved by the State Water Board is five to ten years, and often much longer than that. She states that 596 change petitions are pending, but between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, the State Water Board only approved 15. 2. Mapping. Wagner and Bonsignore has provided the requested maps, although Millview did not have the necessary information to map the areas it currently serves, and it will not have developed that information by March 20. As a result, Wagner and Bonsignore has not been able to prepare a map showing Millview's current service area. (See Attachment 3 for the available maps.) Agenda Summary Report Page 4 March 20, 2007, City Council meeting 3. Scope and Cost of EIR. Staff consulted with Leonard Charles about the scope and cost of the EIR, if the currently proposed change in place of use is revised. Mr. Charles says that his contract for completing the EIR was based on using the data and analysis developed for the draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan ("UVAP") EIR as the basis for analyzing the environmental impacts of expanding the City's place of use under its water rights permit. He has not excluded from his environmental analysis any adverse environmental impact caused by the growth which may be induced by the change in the place of use petition which impact is evaluated in the draft UVAP EIR. The scope of the EIR will be finalized after the project is further defined and in response to public comments on the proposed scope of the EIR. The cost will not increase, unless additional data or impacts, not included in the UVAP draft EIR, are added in response to those public comments. For these same reasons, the scope and cost of the EIR should not change: (1) if the staff recommendation is adopted, (2) if only those areas currently served by Millview and Willow are added to the City's place of use, or (3) if the point of diversion proposal were adopted and the change in place of use petition were limited to the City's probable sphere of influence. The data and analysis developed for the draft UVAP EIR covers all these areas. The portion of the EIR evaluating impacts on the Russian River from increased diversion pertain primarily to the petition to extend the time for putting water to beneficial use and should not be affected by any revisions to the petition to change the place of use. Wagner and Bonsignore have contracted to perform that analysis. In the opinion of the City Attorney, the level of environmental review required to evaluate the growth inducing impacts from expanding the City's place of use under its water rights permit is comparable to the level of review required for evaluating the environmental impacts from revising the County's General Plan. The same amount is known about future development in both cases. For this reason, he believes that Mr. Charles statements about cost are reasonable considering the legally required scope of the EIR. Mr. Charles did say that he may seek an increase in his fee under the contract based on the delays which have occurred in approving the project description and the final scope for the EIR, because his rates and costs have increased during that time. Aftachment # / Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Candace Horsley, City Manager, City of Ukiah Gary Weatherford, Weatherford and Taaffe, LLP Robert C. Wagner, P.E., Wagner & Bonsignore Engineers March 15, 2007 Shared Points of Diversion Approach to lnteragency Emergency Intertie You asked us on March 12 to assess the feasibility of the City of Ukiah, Millview County Water District and Willow County Water District sharing each other's points of water diversion ("PODs"), in conjunction with a right to wheel water in each other's pipes, for emergency purposes. We understand that this idea was presented during the March 7 City Council meeting as a possible alternative to the present course of changing the respective places of use to make lawful emergency deliveries outside each of the three entity's normal service area boundaries. The following issues are posed by the shared point of diversion approach. 1. POD change petitions would have to be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB'"I. Millview and Willow would have to amend further their change petitions, as would the City, in order to add POD's of the other two entities. The amendments would require new public notices and CEQA and interagency review, a process that the City is several years into. 2. Access and wheeling arrangements would have to be negotiated and documented. The existing emergency intertie agreement would have to be either amended or supplanted by an access and wheeling agreement. At present emergency water is delivered by one entity to the other at an intertie valve. Under the shared POD approach, the entity needing emergency water would divert directly from the water source, utilizing another entity's diversion works and pipes to convey (wheel) the water, lssues of access, control, liability, insurance and price would be addressed in new contract provisions. 3. Annexations would not be accommodated. The pending approach of changing places of use ("POUs") for emergency intertie deliveries will more readily accommodate future annexations. Memorandum March 15, 2007 Page 2 4. State approval of the shared POD approach is uncertain. The SWRCB staff expressly requested that the changed POU approach be pursued to provide a lawful foundation for emergency intertie deliveries. Whether the SWRCB would go along with a switch to a shared POD approach is a question. Since our time to assess the shared POD approach has been somewhat limited, we caution that there may be more features and issues involved than this summary suggests. cc: David Rapport, City Attorney COUK097.doc Aftachment # Rob~:~ C. Wa~aer. Aadtcw T. B,'unb,.~cr, P.E. David M. H,~c~. P.E. er&Bonsignore Consultin8 Civil Ensineers, A Corporation Memorandum To: Candace Horsley From: Paula Whealen Date: March 12, 2007 Re: Change in Place of Use Petition Process This is to respond to your question regarding the process and time required for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to approve a Petition for Change in Place of Use. The process is initiated with the filing of the required Petition for Change in Place of Use form, filing fees, and map, in compliance with specific criteria as set forth by the SWRCB and clearly showing the areas to be included in the 'new' place of use. After the Petition is filed, a public notice will be issued initiating the start of a 40-day period in which protests against the proposed change can be filed with the SWRCB. The protests must address issues associated with the proposed change. During the notice period, downstream right holders claiming injury to valid prior rights, environmental groups and/or regulatory agencies who believe the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact may protest the Petition. The SWRCB encourages petitioners and protestors to resolve protests on their own. If a resolution cannot be achieved, the SWRCB staff could conduct an investigation, which may lead to a hearing before the SWRCB. Resolution of protests based on environmental issues is usually aided by the preparation of an environmental document (discussed below). The approval of a water right Petition is a discretionary action subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The next step in the process after public notice is the preparation of a draft environmental document for public review and comment. If the Petitioner is a public agency, like the City of Ukiah, it is required to prepare its own CEQA document to support its Petition. The CEQA document will also be subject to public review and comment. The SWRCB will be a responsible Agency in the CEQA process and may provide comments on the document. If the City adopts the environmental document, opposing agencies or groups can file a petition for reconsideration within the statutory time period. After administrative remedies are exhausted, opposing entities could file suit in court if still not satisfied. Memorandum March 13, 2007 Page 2 Upon resolution of all protests and adoption of the final CEQA document, the SWRCB can issue the order on the Petition. The order would authorize the change in place of use sought by the Petition, and water diverted under the base right could be used for the stated purposes on those lands. Ideally, the foregoing process would be completed within a 2 year period, given the time frame required for public notice of the Petition, comments and protest resolution, and preparation and adoption of a CEQA document. However, it has been our experience that approval of Petitions by the SWRCB has stretched to 5 to 10 years, or longer. As of the end of December 2006, the SWRCB had 596 change petitions pending approval. These include Petitions for Extension of Time, Changes in Place or Purpose of Use, and Change in Points of Diversion. Between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, only 15 Change Petitions and 5 Time Extension Petitions were approved by the SWRCB. COUW096 DOC er&Bonsignore AGENDA ITEM NO: 2a MEETING DATE: March 20, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE DECISION REGARDING PETITION TO CHANGE PLACE OF USE UNDER CITY'S APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHTS PERMIT SUMMARY: The City Council continued its last regular meeting on March 7, 2007, to March 20, 2007, to allow staff an opportunity to provide additional information as requested by Councilmembers at the March 7 meeting. The City Council had the following questions and requests: 1. Would changing the points of diversion, as suggested by Barbara Spazek of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District"), rather than including Millview and Willow County Water Districts in the allowed place of use under the City's water rights permit, satisfactorily address the State Water Board's concern that the City and the Districts would violate their current permits, when they furnish water to each other under the emergency intertie agreements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Retain current proposed change in place of use but only if SWRCB approves a permit condition as described under option 1 of Agenda Summary Report for the March 7, 2007, City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reduce proposed area to include only those areas currently served by Millview and Willow with or without condition described under option 1; abandon petition to change place of use, relying instead on Temporary Urgency Change petitions when emergency service is requested or seek approval from the Flood Control District to use Flood Control District permit water for emergency intertie service; share points of diversion with Millview and Willow and limit the change in place of use petition to the City's probable sphere of influence. Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: City Council David J. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager, Wagner and Bonsignore, Gary Weatherford Attachment 1- Memorandum from Bob Wagner and Gary Weatherford re: shared points of diversion proposal Attachment 2- Memorandum of Paula Whealen re: change petition processing and timeframes Attachment 3- Maps Approved: t._~____¢~~ Candace Horsley, Ci'~Manager N TI6N TISN T15N TI4N I0,Ooo' I Legend City of Ukiah Existing Place of Use City of Ukiah Proposed Sphere of Influence City of Ukiah City Limits Alternative City of Ukiah Place of Use t'or Consideration Map Showing Places of Use City of Ukiah Mendocino County, California lformation on map Obtained from Slate Wa!et Resource Control Board files and/or Cit~ of Llkiah. Base Map Per I I.S.(i.S. 7.5 Minute Quad Maps for Ores Springs. Purdys (iardens. Cow MI. Boonvillc. EIIcdgc Peak. Laughlin Range. Rcdv,,ood Valle_~. Potter Vall~ and Ukiah. March 2007 TI6N TISN TISN TI4N N 5.000' 10,000' Legend Map Showing Places of Use City of Ukiah Existing Place of Use City of Ukiah Proposed Sphere of Influence City of Ukiah City Limits Millview CWD Existing Place of Use Willow CWD Existing Place of Use Willow CWD Proposed Place of Use Alternative City of Ukiah Place of Use for Consideration Informal/on on map obtained from State Water Resource Control Board Iiles and/or C;it) of Ukiah. Willo~ CWD. and Millviexx CW'I1 Base Map Per t ~ S.G.S, 7.5 Minute Quad Maps Ibr C)rrs Springs. Purdys (Jardens, C'o~ Mt. Boonville, Elledge Peak. Laughlin Range. Redxvood Valleh Potter Valley and U'kiah. · City of Ukiah Millview County Water District Willow County Water District Mendocino County. California March 2007 T16N T15N T14N N 5.000' i $ o z Legend Millview CWD Existing Place of Use Millview CWD Proposed Place of Use obtained from State Water Resource Control Board files and/or Millview CWD. Map Showing Places of Use Millview County Water District Mendocino County, California T16N TISN N £ T15N T14N Z Legend Willow CWD Existing Place of Use Willow CWD Proposed Place of Use Willow CWD Lands Currently Being Served Information on map obtained from State Water Resource Control Board files and/or Willow CWD. Map Showing · Places of Use Willow County Water District Mendocino County, California To: Ukiah City Council From: John McCowen RE: Agenda Item 1 l .b. Response to Willits Bypass Denial of Funding Date: March21, 2007 On March 5, 2005 the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) passed a resolution protesting denial of funding for the Willits Bypass by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). MCOG discussed de-programming 31.9 million dollars in locally programmed State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds that are currently programmed for the Willits Bypass, but deferred action pending input from the Willits City Council and other member agencies. The Willits City Council met on March 14 and decided to take no action pending a meeting with Cal Trans and CTC representatives to be held in Willits on April 4. The next MCOG meeting will be April 2 and MCOG staff is also recommending no action pending the April 4 meeting. Cal Trans Director Will Kempton, the CTC Executive Director and a CTC commissioner are expected to attend the April 4 meeting. In view of the pending April 4 meeting it is also appropriate for the City Council to take no action at this time. ITEM NO: 3a MEETING DATE: March 20,2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF AHWAHNEE WATER PRINCIPLES Mayor Rodin has requested a discussion on the Ahwahnee water principles as described in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion on Ahwahnee water principles. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Mayor Rodin Sue Goodrick, Risk Manager/Budget Officer Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Ahwahnee Water Principles Flyer Approved: Candace Horsley, Cit~ Manager il'~, r(li~!i~ litv x',l gu:flit> cf ou: ~ he Wat<x Principles be!ow comple merit the Af/wahnee Principles qOSCTXllC(~ [fficiont Zommunities that were developed in 199~. Many cities and counties are already usinq them to improve tho vitality and p~osperity of d~eir communities. I.Communi~y design should be compac(, mixed use, walkable and ~ansil odented so that automobile g nCra~(d urban runoff pollutants are nfinimized and the open lands (hat absorb wate~ are preserved ~o the maximum extent possible [See rise Ahwahnee Principles for Resource Efficient Comrnunities] ~. Natural resources such as wet lands, flood plains, recharge zones, dpadan a~eas, open space, and nad,~(~ tnabil ars should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater rechargq sab~tat, and overall long term wster resources sustainabilRy. 5 Pelrne,/hle ,,uiiacc's ,,h<ud he parking lots shmdd be minimized so that land is available to absorb stormwater, reduce polluted u~ ban runoff, recharge groundwaler and reduce flooding. 6 Dual plumbing that allows gray waier from showers, sinks and washers to be reused k~r landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development 7.Community design should maxi mi/e the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings ~n antici pa/ion of the future availability of recycled water. 8. Urban water conservation tech nologios such es Iow flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and mom efficient water using industrial equipment should be incorporated ~mpl~mentation Principles litrict,arid )ther-/~knho rat(' to tak~ advant,xl~ fit', a~d ,,yne~g~es o~ wahx resource planning a~ a waterstned level 3The best, multi benefi~ and integrated strategies and projocts should be iden(ificd and imple mented 5otoro less integrated proposals, unless u~gency demands otherwise. 4 From s~art to finish, projects and programs should invoive fine publiq build relationships, and increase (he sharing of and access ~o infl~rmafion. ~he partMpato~y p~ocoss should focus on ensuring dnat all residents have access to clean, mliablo and affordable wate~ tot drinking and recreation 5. Plans, programs, p~ojed s and policies should be monitored and evaluated to detemfine the expected ~esulls are achieved and tO improve future practices ¢) 2005, L oecd/Govemmc~rx domm/ssior~ ha-~aci~c, at<rimpa,~[OnClt,iiiy )[li< mk~nicip,dbudc, i ,i,3 ~:~ c' Ji,,l>)l y!3 aflo~l t<) igr'ore. Clean, Inigh qualit~ wate~ is inox~ricab¥ tie~ l~ ~i[ ~]lth Furth(~, laws mandate that local governments take issues such ~]s ws(el supply, stol management, pollution, flood control and liabilily seriously Dismissing these mandates can lead to ~i~ (~I~ [~ I~[al j~itmlt~t in learns of stormwa[er permits, mandatory wate~ qualKy fines and s~alled economic growth. The least expensive method of assuring a clean and adequate wa~er supply is i~1~I Ia~J ~[~ J~(i[i~ lhat take water supply and quali~y ~nto accounL rhe Local Governmen[ Gommission created the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource--Efficient Land Use to ~i~ I~(]1 Jtlili~-l]/tll ~il~ ~(Ii~1 land use policies and pro~ects ~hat they can take as they face major challenges with water contamination, stormwater runoff} flood damage liability and concerns about whether there will be a reliable water supply for cu~ren[ and future residents. A new 85 page guidebook, The Ahwonhee ~u{er Principles: A ?/ue?r/nt ~or Sust~/n0~)//ity, outlines a ~l~ltil]l ]~l~tl~ II ~]ltl-~ilt l]~J lit, and provides model projects and contacts for communities that are already implementing the principles. It provides important information about federal and state laws that impact local governmen[ and offers references to additional I~[~[~ littli]ll and information. A special section on ~al~ ~1~[~I[ provides model general plan language gleaned from existing general plans and other planning documents adop[ed by communities throughout d~e state. Get your copy today! · Order printed versions of the 8S-page guidebook ($20) · Download a free copy at www2.1gc.org/bookstore NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that the City Council of the City of Ukiah (the "City"), at its regular meeting on March 21, 2007, at 6:15 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, will hold a public hearing pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33679 on the proposed use of Ukiah Redevelopment Agency funds for the acquisition of land and to reimburse the construction of buildings to be owned by the I~lendocino Office of Education. The property and buildings are located at 1.100 Low Gap Road in the City of Ukiah. The hearing will be held in the City Council chambers at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA. 95482. A summary of the proposal is available for inspection and copying at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Ukiah at the Ukiah Civic Center and may be viewed on the City's website: www.citvofukiah.com. By: /s/Gall Petersen City Clerk Dated: February 22, 2007 Publish Stmday February 25, 2007 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MENDOCINO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND The City of Ukiah created a redevelopment agency ("Agency"), adopted a redevelopment plan, and established a redevelopment project area in 1990. The Agency uses a portion of property tax revenues to undertake projects and finance improvements to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions in the redevelopment project area. The primary source of income to a redevelopment agency is "tax increment," which is the portion of ad valorem real property tax that results from the increase in assessed value of real property in the Agency's redevelopment project area over the "base year," which is the year the redevelopment plan is approved. The increment is composed of two parts: the annual 2% increase authorized by Cal. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 110, and the increase resulting from reassessment of real property after a sale or after the construction of improvements. In 1990, when the City of Ukiah adopted its redevelopment plan and created the Agency, it entered an agreement ("MCOE Agreement") with the Mendocino County Office of Education ("MCOE"), among other local government agencies. The agreement with MCOE requires the Agency to pay into a Capital Outlay Fund for MCOE the 2% of property tax increment above the 1990 base year that goes to the Agency. The agreement authorizes MCOE to request the City Council to approve the disbursement of funds in the Capital Outlay Fund for capital improvements proposed by MCOE that comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 33445, 33678, 33679 and other provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law. Under the agreement and the Community Redevelopment Law, the City Council must conduct a public hearing in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 33679 before it can approve the disbursement of funds in the Capital Outlay Fund for the acquisition of land or the construction of buildings to be owned by MCOE. MCOE has requested that the funds currently on deposit in its Capital Outlay Fund and all future funds to be deposited during the remaining term of the Ukiah Development Plan be disbursed to MCOE to pay for the cost of acquiring real property from the City of Ukiah upon which MCOE has constructed the Ukiah High On-Campus Community School and the Ukiah High Young Parent Program/CalSAFE at 1100 Low Gap Road and to reimburse MCOE for the cost of constructing the school and landscaping the school grounds. Under the MCOE Agreement, MCOE currently leases this property from the City of Ukiah for $1 per year. The City has agreed to sell the property to MCOE for $174,667. Prior to conducting its public hearing on this request, the City is required to make available for two weeks a summary. The summary must state the totat amount of taxes proposed to be used for the acquisition of land and the construction of buildings and other improvements, and it must include the facts supporting the findings which are required by Health & Safety Code §33445. Those findings are as follows: (1) That the buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are of benefit to the project area or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located. (2) That no other reasonable means of financing the buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements, are available to the community. (3) That the payment of funds for the acquisition of land or the cost of buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project. 1. Estimate of taxes proposed to pay for land and construction of buildings. a. $ 174,667 b. 5,000 c. 1,900,000 $2,079,667 for land purchase. closing cost (estimated). approximate construction cost Total 2. Facts supporting findings under Health & Safety Code Section 33445. a. The buildings are of benefit to the project area and contribute to the elimination of blight. i. The Community School Program serves probation referred, juvenile court referred, expelled, and habitual truants. The community school also serves pregnant and parenting teens and their children through the Cai SAFE program. Collectively, these programs will be referred to as CSF. Their mission is meet the social, emotional, academic, vocational and creative needs of "at-risk" students in Mendocino County. They provide these services in an environment that honors and respects each student. ii. The CSF is located across Low Gap Road from the Ukiah High School. iii. The current enrollment in CSF, grades 8-12, is 163 students. Of these, a significant number are Hispanic (56) and Native American (25). Students attending the CSF have shown steady improvement, year-to-year, on the standardized state tests, including the California Achievement Test. iv. Minors in juvenile probation, subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, particularly those who have committed acts which would constitute a crime, if committed by an adult, or who are in danger of becoming delinquent, as well as habitual truants and students expelled from school commit acts of vandalism and other crimes and join gangs, all of which contributes to blighted conditions within the Ukiah Redevelopment Project Area. v. The CSF provides educational opportunities, counseling and other services which address the needs of these "at risk" youth, and thereby contribute to the reduction of blighted conditions in the project area. b. There are no other reasonable means of financing the buildings available to the community. i. According to MCOE, it lacks the means to finance the purchase of the land or the construction of the buildings, comprising the CSF. ii. According to MCOE, the funds it advanced to construct the buildings must be restored from the Capital Outlay Fund. iii. The use of Capital Outlay Funds in compliance with the request of the school district for which they have been set aside is consistent with the implementation plan adopted by the Agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code §33490. February 25, 2007 Ukiah Redevelopment Agency E/A I8Ci' VNIdS_qg