Ukiah City Council
May 4, 2022

39 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning, the General Plan, or other land use policies intended for reducing environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

12. Mineral Resources
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to mineral resources would be considered significant if the proposed Project were to result in the loss of a known mineral resource that has value to the region and state or is otherwise locally important as designated on a local land use plan.

Environmental Setting: The most predominant of the minerals found in Mendocino County are aggregate resource minerals, primarily sand and gravel, found along many rivers and streams. The Ford Gravel Bars are located in Ukiah, along the Russian River.

Discussion: (a-b) No impact. There are no identified mineral resources within the Project area. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None

13. Noise
NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

40 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
b) Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact if it temporarily or permanently exceeded local noise standards in the vicinity of the Project, generated excessive ground borne noise or vibration; or would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels from public airports or private airstrips.

Environmental Setting: The Ukiah City Code does not contain thresholds for analyzing noise impacts from construction-related noise, but guidance documents from the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration provide information on maximum noise and vibration levels associated with construction equipment and thresholds of significance for analyzing such impacts.

Although the Ukiah City Code does not contain thresholds of significance for analyzing constructionrelated noise, UCC §6054, Construction of Buildings and Projects, states that it shall be unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet (500’) therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, buildings or projects or to operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist or any other construction type device (between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day) in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the Director of Public works.

The UCC’s Noise Ordinance (Division 7, Chapter 1, Article 6) that establishes ambient base noise level standards that apply to specific zoning districts within the City of Ukiah. These are specific to operation (not construction). “Ambient noise” is the all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of the Noise Ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen (15) minutes without inclusion of noise from isolated identifiable sources, at the location and time of day near that at which a comparison is to be made. Land uses exceeding these standards for long periods of time are considered to be significant.

Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. Construction activities such as the proposed demolition could result in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment and generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, during noise-sensitive times of the day (typically early morning or nighttime), or when construction activity occurs at the same precise location over an extended period of time (e.g., pile driving in one location for 8-10 hours in a day, or over a duration of several successive days). Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term medical and mental care facilities. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, particularly during the nighttime hours.

41 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
The nearest “sensitive receptor” (includes schools, libraries, child care facilities, health care facilities, senior facilities, and residences) is the Mendocino County Library (Ukiah Branch), located at 105 North Main Street, approximately 68 ft (0.1 mi) north of the site. Additional sensitive receptors in the area include the following: residences including the Circle Trailer Park, located at 317 North Main Street, approximately 676 ft (0.13 mi) north of the site; a single-family residence located at 412 South Main Street, approximately 763 ft (0.14 mi) south of the site; and Adventist Health Ukiah Valley Hospital, located at 275 Hospital Drive, approximately 1,087 ft (0.21 mi) northeast of site. The nearest school is South Valley High School, located at 429 South Dora Street, approximately 1,880 ft (0.36 mi) southwest of the Project site.3
Equipment for demolition would include a mechanical ram, dump truck, pickup truck, excavator, backhoe, front end loader, bobcat & stinger for concrete demolition. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors (2017), maximum noise levels (at a 50-foot distance) for equipment that would be used for the Project are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment Lmax at 50 feet, dBA4
Backhoe 78
Mechanical Ram 90
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Pickup Truck 75
Bobcat 80
Stinger (jack hammer) 88
The main source of existing noise at the Project site is from vehicles driving by, as the Project is located at a fairly busy intersection (Perkins Street and Main Street within downtown Ukiah. For reference, normal conversation is approximately 60 dBA, vehicles passing by are approximately 70- 80 dBA, and a gasoline-powered lawn mower is 90 dBA. There are no quantitative standards for construction noise levels specified by either the Ukiah General Plan or the UCC. However, UCC Section 6054 restricts construction activities within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Although the Project would not be located within a residential zone, it would adhere to these regulations intended to lessen noise impacts to sensitive receptors.
3 Instilling Goodness Elementary appears on Google Earth as being located near the Mendocino County Superior Court House, located at 100 North State Street. However, it was confirmed that the school is located in Talmage approximately

2.5 miles southeast, and there are no classes at this location. 4 Lmax is the maximum sound level measured during a single noise event (at 50 ft in this case). dBA is the measurement of noise in decibels on a weighted scale for judging loudness that corresponds to the hearing threshold specific to the human ear.

42 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
The Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) identifies a daytime noise levels of over 90 dBA for extended periods of time as a noise level where adverse community reaction could occur at residential land uses within 500 ft of the noise. As shown in Table 1, the range of noise associated with equipment used for the Project would be 75 to 90 decibels (dBA) at 50 feet away from the noise source. Maximum noise levels generated by the Project would reach up to 90 dBA at times with the use of a mechanical ram and stinger (jack hammer) for concrete demolition. However, the nearest residence is approximately 676 ft away from the Project, which is beyond the distance identified as resulting in an adverse impact to adjacent residential uses.

While the library is approximately 68 ft away from the Project, existing noise levels in the Project area associated with passing vehicles is 70-80 dBA. The Project could result in an increase of up to 10 dBA with the use of the mechanical ram and stinger, but would likely be lower, as it is more than 50 ft away and library users would be located inside the building. Additionally, operation of each piece of equipment over the temporary three-week period would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. Lastly, Project construction will occur Monday through Friday, during daylight hours, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. As such, noise impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.
(b) Less than significant impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Similar to the discussion in the noise analysis in criteria (a) above, the City does not contain specific standards or thresholds related to groundborne vibration.

However, the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual identifies 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) as the level at which potential damage could result to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.5 Additionally, Caltrans identifies 0.24 in/sec PPV as the level at which vibration is distinctly perceivable to humans. Based on ground-borne vibration levels for standard types of construction equipment provided by the FTA, of the equipment proposed to be used for Project construction, the use of the stinger jack hammer would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels (typically 0.035 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet). Due to the Project’s proximity to the nearest sensitive receptor (library, approximately 68 ft away) and the fact that the operation of equipment would produce vibration levels below the aforementioned thresholds, the Project would not result in significant groundborne vibration, and impacts would be less than significant.
(c) Less than significant impact. The Project parcel is located approximately 1.1 miles north of the Ukiah Municipal Airport within Airport Compatibility Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone) of the UKIALUCP, which has the potential to result in some overheard noise during approach and departure.

The UKIALUCP does not contain any policies related to demolition of existing buildings. According to Table 3A of the UKIALUCP, many uses such as a variety office, commercial and retail uses are listed as conditionally compatible, subject to density, height, and use development standards. However, no development is proposed at this time. All future development would have to comply with the

5 Peak Particle Velocity is the peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform. Usually expressed in inches/second in the United States.

43 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
UKIALUCP. The Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise related to airport operations for people working in the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

14. Population and Housing
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Significance Criteria: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to the local population or housing stock if it directly or indirectly induced substantial unplanned population growth or displaced a substantial number of people or housing such that the construction of replacement housing would be required.

Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah is approximately 4.72 square miles in size and located within Mendocino County. Overall, the City of Ukiah’s population has increased moderately over the past nearly 30 years, with a more accelerated increase in the last four years. Projections from the California State University Chico Center for Economic Development- Mendocino County Economic/Demographic Profile show this trend continuing. As described in the City’s Housing Element (2019) of the General Plan, the City’s annual growth rate between 1990 and 2018 averaged approximately 0.3%. Between 2000 and 2010, the City added 545 residents, or 3.7%, to its population.

According to the California Department of Finance, the population in the County of Mendocino was 59,985 in 2018 and 16,226 in the City of Ukiah. The 2020 Census data identifies the City of Ukiah population as 16,607.

Discussion: (a-b) No Impact. The Project would not involve the construction of new homes or businesses, or the extension of roads that would induce population growth, nor would the Project displace any people or housing, as no residences are located on-site. No impact.

Mitigation Measures: None

44 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

15. Public Services
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant impact to public services if it resulted in a requirement for increased or expanded public service facilities or staffing, including fire or police protection, schools and parks.

Environmental Setting: Police protection services for the entire City limits is provided by the Ukiah Police Department, while the Mendocino County Sherriff’s Department provides police services for areas outside of the City limits. Fire protection services in the City are provided by the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. Educational facilities in the City are provided by the Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD) and County Office of Education. Additionally, there are several private and charter schools serving residents within the City of Ukiah. As mentioned below in Section 16, Recreation, of this Initial Study, there are 13 City parks, a municipal golf course, and a skate park managed by the City of Ukiah, as well as other recreational facilities in the area.

Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact. The City of Ukiah Police Department and Ukiah Valley Fire Authority are responsible for emergency response at the Project site, including during demolition activities. Because the Project does not propose development, the Project will not have a substantial effect on their ability to serve the area, nor would it result in the need for additional resources. Similarly, the Project would not result in an increase in population that would impact schools or parks in the area. As such, the Project would not result in result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

45 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

6. Recreation
RECREATION. Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to recreation would be significant if the Project resulted in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration was accelerated or if the Project involved the development or expansion of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the physical environment.

Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah manages several recreation facilities, including more than 13 City parks. In addition, there are approximately 30 miles of trails located throughout the Ukiah Valley, under County and federal jurisdiction.

Discussion: (a-b) No impact. The Project does not include the alteration or addition of recreational facilities. The Project does also does not propose new development that could potentially increase the use of recreational facilities in the area. As such, no Impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None

46 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

17. Transportation
TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b), Criteria for
Analyzing Traffic Impacts?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to transportation and traffic would be significant if the Project conflicted with a local plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflicted with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.3(b), which contains criteria for analyzing transportation impacts; substantially increased hazards due to geometric design features; or resulted in inadequate emergency access.

Traditionally, transportation impacts had been evaluated by using Level of Service (LOS) analysis to measure the level of congestion on local roadways. However, on September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, initiating an update to the CEQA Guidelines to change how lead agencies evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA, with the goal to better measure the actual transportation-related environmental impacts of a given project. Starting July 1, 2020, lead agencies are required to analyze the transportation impacts of new projects using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), instead of LOS. VMT measures the amount of additional miles produced by the project. If the project increases car travel onto the roads excessively, the project may cause a significant transportation impact.

In 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) which is intended to provide advice and recommendations for evaluating VMT, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. As discussed further below, the Technical Advisory offers that screening thresholds may be used to identify when land use projects, such as small-scale residential projects, should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed traffic study.

On behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Fehr & Peers, prepared a Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study (Baseline Study; May, 2020) to provide an overview of SB 743, summarize VMT data available for Mendocino County, discuss alternatives for and recommend VMT measurement methods and thresholds for lead agencies in Mendocino County, and recommend transportation demand management (TDM) strategies for reducing VMT on projects in Mendocino County.

The following local plans have historically addressed transportation within the City of Ukiah: 2017

47 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Ukiah Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), Mendocino County Rail Trail Plan (2012), Ukiah Downtown Streetscape Improvement Plan (2009), and the City of Ukiah General Plan (Circulation and Transportation Element amended in 2004).

MCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan (2017) and Section 5, Circulation and Transportation, of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan (2011) addresses transportation within the larger Ukiah Valley. The Baseline Study incorporated applicable goals and policies from each of these documents into the methodology and analysis when formulating its screening tools.

A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively.

Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah generally lies west of U.S. 101 between the U.S. 101/North State Street interchange, and the U.S. 101 / South State Street interchange. Three major interchanges along U.S. 101, Talmage Road, Gobbi Street, and Perkins Street (from south to north), provide access to southern and central Ukiah. The City of Ukiah is developed in a typical grid pattern with streets generally oriented north to south and east to west. Bicycle lanes are located throughout the City and public transit is provided by the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA).

The Project site is currently accessed via both Perkins Street and Main Street, both City-maintained two-lane roads that are developed with sidewalks but no bike lanes in the Project area. The nearest MTA bus stop is located in front of the library, approximately 130 ft north of the Project site at the intersection of North Main and East Stanley Street.

Discussion: (a-d) Less than significant impact. No change to the City’s circulation system, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be required or is proposed to occur with implementation of the Project. Access, including emergency access, is currently provided through existing driveways and City streets. The Project does not propose any modifications to access or other transit-related facilities on-site or in the immediate vicinity. As such, impacts to this criterion (c and d) would be less than significant.

Because the Project does not propose new development, this analysis focuses on temporary impacts to the circulation system that may occur during the construction (demolition) phase. The Project has been reviewed by Staff, as well as the Public Works Department to analyze the Project’s impacts to traffic and circulation. Staff relied upon the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory; 2018) and the Mendocino Council of Governments’ (MCOG) Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study (Baseline Study; 2020) which are intended to provide recommendations and screening thresholds for evaluating traffic impacts by the way of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). One useful tool within these documents for small scale commercial Projects, are the thresholds identified to determine when such projects should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed traffic study. Specifically, as noted in OPR’s Technical Advisory, absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a general plan or other transportation related document, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than- significant transportation impact. This is further supported in MCOG’s Baseline Study that identifies construction of up to 50,000 sf of commercial buildings in urban areas as less than significant. VMT analyses are most appropriate for analyzing operational impacts or large-scale construction projects that produce significant traffic trips and/or vehicle miles traveled. However, these screening thresholds have been conservatively used for analyzing impacts associated with the Project.

48 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
Demolition would include a temporary increase in traffic associated with ingress and egress of vehicles and equipment to and from the Project site via South Main and Perkins Streets. As noted in the Project Description, demolition would take approximately three weeks with a crew of six construction workers.

All work would be performed Monday through Friday, during daylight hours (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and p.m., depending on the season). Construction equipment would be staged on-site and all activities will be performed within the site boundaries. It is anticipated that two to three dump truck trips a day would be necessary to transfer demolished materials for disposal and recycling.

Construction equipment and trucks would utilize existing driveways and access routes on Main and Perkins Streets and travel to the quarry, transfer Station and recycling center via U.S. Highway 101.

No road closures are required or anticipated for the Project.

The Project is anticipated to produce up to five dump truck trips per day, in addition to six vehicle trips for construction workers, for a total of 11 trips per day. Because the Project’s daily trips would be less than the 110 trips screening threshold identified by OPR, the Project does not involve new construction, and does not conflict with the City’s General Plan or other local plans intended to address circulation, the Project can be presumed to not result in a significant impact to traffic. As such, a subsequent detailed traffic study is not required and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Significance Criteria: An impact to tribal cultural resources would be significant if the Project were to substantially reduce the significance of a tribal cultural resource, a listed or eligible historic resource, or a resource considered significant by a California Native American tribe. Tribal cultural resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to

49 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
a California Native American Tribe” that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or included in a local register of historical resources. Lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project.” The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified.

Environmental Setting: As discussed in Section V.5, Cultural Resources, areas that are most typically culturally sensitive include those adjacent to streams, springs, and mid-slope benches above watercourses because Native Americans and settlers favored easy access to potable water.

Tribes known to be present within the Ukiah area include (but are not limited to) the following:
• Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
• Guidiville Indian Rancheria of Pomo Indians
• Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
• Pinoleville Pomo Nation
• Potter Valley Rancheria
• Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians
• Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
• Yokayo Tribe, not federally recognized
Discussion: (a) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section V.5, Cultural Resources, because the Dragon’s Lair building qualifies as a local historic resource under CEQA that would be demolished, the Project would result in a significant impact to that resource if not properly mitigated. Under CEQA, feasible Mitigation associated with alteration or demolition of historic buildings is most commonly directly related to efforts for preserving the architecture and/or the building’s appearance. However, because the Project proposes to demolish the buildings and does not propose new development at this time, mitigation measures related to architectural preservation are not appropriate. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require photo documentation of the building to catalogue its existence and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires an educational plaque to be erected on-site to acknowledge its historic significance related to the 1917 fire. Because the Project proposes to demolish the building that is not historically significant for its architecture, and does not propose new development at this time, these mitigation measures are considered adequate for reducing impacts to less than significant levels. As such, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

Discussion: (b) Less than significant. As described in Section V.5, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, the site is considered to have a “low potential” for cultural and archeological resources. In accordance with AB 52, a notification proving the opportunity for consultation was sent to the Guidiville Rancheria of California but no response requesting formal consultation was received. Regardless, construction of the Project will be required to adhere to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (e-f) which specifically addresses what to do in the event that human remains or archeological resources are accidentally discovered.

Mitigation Measures:

Implementation of CUL-1 and CUL-2

50 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

19. Utilities and Service Systems
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to utility and service systems would be significant if the Project resulted in the construction or expansion of utilities that could cause significant environmental effects; have insufficient water supplies available to the Project during normal to extremely dry years; resulted in inadequate capacity of the wastewater treatment plant; generated solid waste exceeding the capacity of local infrastructure or impairing the achievement of solid waste reduction goals; or failed to comply with any management and reduction statutes or regulations related to solid waste.

Environmental Setting: The majority of City properties are served by City water, sewer, electricity and trash collection as summarized below.

Electric. The City of Ukiah’s Electric Utility Department provides electric services to properties within the City limits, while Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides services to properties outside of the City.

Water. There are five major providers of community water services in the Ukiah Valley. The City of Ukiah serves customers within the City, while Rogina Water Company and Millview, Calpella, and Willow County Water Districts serve the unincorporated areas. The City of Ukiah 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by City Council on June 2, 2021. The UWMP considers several growth scenarios including an additional 2,500 and 5,000 hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections.

51 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
Sewer and Wastewater. The Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) and the City of Ukiah provide public sewer services to customers within their boundaries under the purview of the State Water Quality Control Board. The City’s sewage treatment plant and Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), operational since 1958, serves the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District.

Solid Waste. The Ukiah landfill, outside City limits on Vichy Springs Road, stopped receiving municipal solid waste in 2001 and the City is working on capping the landfill. Solid waste generated in the Ukiah Valley is exported for disposal to the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. The Valley’s solid waste disposal system consists of a large volume transfer station, Ukiah Transfer Station, which receives waste for export.

Discussion: (a-c) No Impact. The Project does not propose new development or alteration of the following: water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. The Project would not use water, with the exception of a water truck to mitigate dust, as needed. As such, there would be no impact to these utilities and services systems.

Discussion: (d & e) Less than significant impact. As noted in the Project Description, demolished concrete and rebar will be off hauled and recycled at a local rock quarry. Dump trucks would off-haul debris and deliver to the Ukiah Transfer Station & Recycling Center, where metal materials would be recycled and non-recyclable materials would be disposed of. All waste produced from Project activities would be disposed of at the Ukiah Transfer Station in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

52 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

20. Wildfire
WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response planor emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Significance Criteria: Impacts to wildfire would be significant if the Project were located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and substantially impaired an emergency response plan; exposed Project occupants to wildfire pollutants or uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to site conditions such as slope and prevailing winds; require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk; or expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire runoff, slope instability or drainage changes.

Environmental Setting: All lands within the City of Ukiah are within the jurisdiction of the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. None of the lands within the City of Ukiah are located within a California Department of Forestry (CalFire) State Responsibility Area (SRA). However, some parcels within the western boundary of the City limits are designated as “Very High” fire severity within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The Project site is not located in an area identified as having a High or Very High fire severity risk.

As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the County’s EOP plan and MJHMP address emergency operations, natural disasters (including wildfire), as well as mitigation strategies to reduce potential risks. The City of Ukiah adopted its “jurisdictional annex” chapter of the MJHMP on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City of Ukiah include earthquakes, wildfire, dam failure, flood and pandemic. Table 1-13 of the City’s jurisdictional annex lists each hazard and mitigation action for City of Ukiah.

Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. The Project site is accessed via existing driveways and roads, and there are no components of the Project that would conflict with, or impair the adopted MJHMP, EOP, or other adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. As described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project site is not located within a High or Very High fire severity zone. Because the Project site is developed with pavement, and the Project

53 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
does not propose new development within a High or Very High severity zone, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The use of gasoline-powered equipment will be used in accordance with all existing Building Code and Fire Code regulations intended to reduce fire risk (such as the use of spark arresters, for example).

Discussion: (c-d) No impact. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. In addition, the Project would not include earthwork in a sloped, undeveloped area or other components that could result in downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None.

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: (a) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described and analyzed throughout the Initial Study, impacts to Air Quality, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources could be significant. However, with the implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Specifically, temporary activities associated with demolition over the three-week construction period could result in direct significant impacts to Air Quality, but would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, requiring adherence to Mendocino County Air Quality Management District regulations. The Tom’s Glass building is not located on a local, state, or federal historic register. Therefore, no impact to historic resources would occur as a result of its demolition. However, because the Dragon’s Lair building qualifies as a local historic resource under CEQA that would be demolished, the Project would

54 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
result in a significant impact to that resource if not properly mitigated. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require photo documentation of the building to catalogue its existence and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires an educational plaque to be erected on-site to acknowledge its historic significance related to the 1917 fire. Because the Project proposes to demolish the building that is not historically significant for its architecture, and does not propose new development at this time, these mitigation measures are considered adequate for reducing impacts to less than significant levels. As such, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

The Project would result in either no impact, or less than significant impact to all other resources. See Section V, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, for more information. (b) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative impacts are generally considered in analyses of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic.

As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on these resources or less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures described herein. Short-term construction impacts associated with the Project would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts in the area as there are no known past projects nor current projects within the vicinity of the site. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, cumulative impacts related to the Proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
(c) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the Proposed Project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

55 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
VI. REFERENCES

1. APD Preservation. LLC. Historic Resource Evaluation for 101 South Main Street.

Revised January, 2022.

2. CalFire State Responsibility Area Viewer
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sraviewer_launch

3. CalFire, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Web Viewer. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

4. California Air Resources Board (CARB). California Releases Report Charting Path to 100 Percent Clean Electricity. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-releases-reportcharting-path-100-percent-clean-electricity

5. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. Earthquake Fault Map, Ukiah. Zones of Required Investigation.
http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/UKIAH.PDF .

6. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. U.S. Landslide Inventory Web Application.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ae120962f459434b8c9 04b456c82669d

7. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

8. California Department of Finance. American Community Survey. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Reports/Demographic_Reports/American_Community_Survey

9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bios Vegetation Mapping. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/

10. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor database https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/

11. California Department of Transportation California State Scenic Highway System map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000d fcc19983

12. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Discussion Draft Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA, May 2015.

13. City of Ukiah General Plan. Last amended 2019. http://www.cityofukiah.com/documentsand-maps/

56 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

14. City of Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design, W-Trans and Walk Bike Mendocino. August 2015.

15. City of Ukiah Code. Last amended 2021. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Ukiah

16. City of Ukiah, 1985. City of Ukiah Historic Resources Survey, prepared by Historic Environmental Consultants.

17. City of Ukiah, 1999. City of Ukiah Architectural Survey Update, prepared by P.S.

Preservation Services.

18. City of Ukiah. Housing Element Update 2019-2027. Adopted October 23, 2019 and Certified by HCD December 5, 2019.http://www.cityofukiah.com/projects/housingelement-update/

19. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWAHEP-05-054). https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construc tion_Noise_Model_User_Guide_FHWA.pdf

20. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2017. Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors, last updated August 24, 2017. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09. cfm.

21. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf

22. Fehr & Peers, on behalf of the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG), Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Regional Baseline Study. May 20, 2020. https://www.mendocinocog.org/vehicle-miles-traveled-vmt-regional-baseline-studycompleted

23. Landslide Inventory (Beta). California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/

24. Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG). 2017 Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Davey Bates Consulting. Adopted February 5, 2018. https://www.mendocinocog.org/files/742330750/2017+RTP+As+Adopted%28web+forma t%29.pdf

25. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District of the California North Coast Air Basin. Particulate Matter Attainment Plan. January 2005. https://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/pm-attainment.html

26. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District website. http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/diesel-engine-information.html.

27. Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission. Ukiah Municipal Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021.

57 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
http://www.cityofukiah.com/NewWeb/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ukiah-MunicipalAirport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan-2021.pdf

28. Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). Adopted December, 2020. Vol 2, Chapter 1, City of Ukiah Jurisdictional Annex, adopted by the City of Ukiah November 18, 2020.

29. Mendocino County Office of Education. Schools & Districts. https://www.mcoe.us/schools-districts/

30. Mendocino County Public GIS Portal https://gis.mendocinocounty.org/portal/home/

31. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.

32. Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. December 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf

33. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

34. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-state-report?state=CA&status=listed

35. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Interactive Fault Map. https://www.usgs.gov/naturalhazards/earthquake-hazards/faults?qt-science_support_page_related_con=4#qtscience_support_page_related_con

36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetland Habitat Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

37. Ukiah Valley Area Plan, adopted August 2, 2011.
https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/planning-building-services/plans/ukiahvalley-area-plan

58 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential
Impact
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring &
Reporting
Responsibility
Timing Date
Implemented
Air Quality
Construction
and ground
disturbing
activities could
result in shortterm impacts to
air quality.

AQ-1: Diesel Engines – Stationary and
Portable Equipment and Mobile
Vehicles:
a. All stationary onsite diesel IC engines
50 horsepower or greater (i.e. large
power generators or pumps) or any
propane or natural gas engines 250
horsepower or greater require a permit
from the MCAQMD.
b. Portable diesel-powered equipment that
may be used are required to be
registered with the state Portable
Equipment Registration Program
(PERP) or obtain permits from
MCAQMD.
c. Heavy duty truck idling and off-road
diesel equipment or other diesel engine
idling is limited to less than 5 minutes.

Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor;
Mendocino
County Air
Quality
Management
District
Throughout
construction
AQ-2: Grading Projects: All grading
activities must comply with the following
fugitive dust mitigation measures in
Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor;
Mendocino
Throughout
construction

59 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
accordance with District Regulation 1, Rule 1-430:

1. All visibly dry disturbed soil road
surfaces shall be watered to minimize
fugitive dust emissions.
a. Open bodied trucks shall be
covered when used for transporting
materials likely to give rise to
airborne dust.
b. All unpaved surfaces, unless
otherwise treated with suitable
chemicals or oils, shall have a
posted speed limit of 10 mph.
c. Earth or other material that has
been transported by trucking or
earth moving equipment, erosion by
water, or other means onto paved
streets shall be promptly removed.
d. Asphalt, oil, water, or suitable
chemicals shall be applied on
materials stockpiles, and other
surfaces that can give rise airborne
dusts.
e. All earthmoving activities shall
cease when sustained winds
exceed 15 mph.
f. The operator shall take reasonable
precautions to prevent the entry of
unauthorized vehicles onto the site
during non-work hours.
g. The operator shall keep a daily log
of activities to control fugitive dust.
h. For projects greater than one acre
or one mile of road not located
within a Naturally Occurring
County Air
Quality
Management
District

60 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
Asbestos Area, prior to starting any
construction the applicant is
required to:
i. Submit a Large Area Grading
permit application to the
District.
ii. Obtain a final determination
from the Air Quality
Management District as to the
need for an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan and/or
Geologic Survey to comply
with CCR sections 93106 and
93105 relating to Naturally
Occurring Asbestos.
iii. Obtain written verification from
the District stating that the
project is in compliance with
State and Local regulations
relating to Naturally Occurring
Asbestos.
iv. If the project is located within a
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Area, additional mitigations
shall be required.

AQ-3: Asbestos Survey. Demolition of all
commercial buildings are subject to the
requirements of MCAQMD Regulation 1,
Rule 492, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for
Asbestos. Prior to receiving a demolition
permit from the City, the applicant shall:
a. Have an Asbestos Survey completed
by a licensed Asbestos contractor for
Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor;
Mendocino
County Air
Quality
Management
District
Prior to
issuance of
Demolition
Permit

61 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
the presence of asbestos containing
materials;
b. Submit a completed Asbestos
Demolition/Renovation form, all test
results and applicable notification fees
to the District at least 10 days prior to
beginning the Project;
c. Have asbestos containing materials
abated by a licensed abatement
contractor prior to beginning and
demolition or renovation activities, if
applicable; and
d. Obtain written authorization from
MCAQMD indicating that all
requirements have been met prior to
receiving the demolition permit.

Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources
Demolition of
the Dragon’s
Lair building
could result in
significant
impacts to a
historic
resource
CUL-1: Photo Documentation. Prior to
issuance of the demolition permit, photo
documentation of the Dragon’s Lair building
shall be required in order to catalogue its
existence. The photo documentation shall
be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director and
submitted to the Mendocino County Historic
Society.

Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor; City
of Ukiah
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permit

62 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah
CUL-2: Educational Plaque. Prior to final
completion of the demolition permit, an
educational plaque shall be erected on-site
to acknowledge the Dragon’s Lair building’s
historic significance related to rebuild efforts
after the 1917 fire. The plaque design and
content, as well as the proposed placement,
shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director for review and
approval. The plaque shall remain on-site if
and when the site is developed in the future.

If the plaque is proposed for relocation, the
property owner shall receive written
approval from the Community Development
Director to do so.

Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor; City
of Ukiah
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
receiving final
completion of
the demolition
permit

63 Demolition Permit for Two Buildings Over 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Ukiah

INSERT ATTACHMENTS

Historic Resource Evaluation
101 South Main Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Mendocino County, California
(APN 002-231-01-00)
Prepared for:

Douglas Hilberman, AIA, LEED AP
AXIA Architects
250 D Street, Suite 210
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 542-4652
Prepared by:

Alice P. Duffee, Historic Preservation Planner
APD Preservation LLC
January 2020; REVISED January 2022 for Todd
Schapmire

ATTACHMENT A

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF FIGURES 3
PROJECT OVERVIEW & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
METHODOLOGY 5
EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS 6
SITE LOCATION 6
DESCRIPTION 7
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF UKIAH 8
HISTORY OF 101 SOUTH MAIN STREET 12
TABLE OF OWNERS 20
TABLE OF TENANTS 20
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY 21
CRITERIA 21
INTEGRITY ANALYSIS 22
CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES 23
CONCLUSION 24
RESOURCES CONSULTED 25
APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS 27
APPENDIX B: UKIAH “HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY” SURVEY FORMS (1985, REVISED 1999) 45
APPENDIX C: DPR523 FORM A, PRIMARY FORM 49
APPENDIX D: DPR523 FORM B, BUILDING/OBJECT/STRUCTURE FORM 51 APPENDIX E: DPR523 FORM L, CONTINUATION FORMS 53
APPENDIX E: DPR523 FORM J, LOCATION MAP 56

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
3 Table of Figures
PARCEL MAP 2-23 ......................................................................................................................................... 6 AERIAL VIEW OF PROJECT AREA, GOOGLE MAPS 2020.................................................................................... 7 1866 MAP OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STERLING M. HOLDREDGE ................................................................... 9 ABSALOM AND MARY PERKINS, 1859 ............................................................................................................ 10 PERKINS CHILDREN, 1859............................................................................................................................ 10 UKIAH POPULATION, 1880 TO 2010 .............................................................................................................. 10 HEADLINE OF UKIAH DISPATCH, JUNE 22, 1917............................................................................................. 11

POST FIRE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WEST SIDE OF STATE STREET, BETWEEN PERKINS AND CHURCH STREETS (COURTESY OF ED BOLD)....................................................................................................................... 11 1958 USGS QUAD, UKIAH, CA..................................................................................................................... 11 UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 27, 1891................................................................................................ 12 PERKINS AD, MENDOCINO DEMOCRAT, NOVEMBER 1, 1873 ........................................................................... 12 MCKINDLEY LIVERY, UKIAH CITY PRESS, AUGUST 9, 1878............................................................................. 12 HOLZ FEED CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DISPATCH DEMOCRAT, JUNE 24, 1921 ............................................ 13 "ELLIS FEED BARN," UKIAH DISPATCH, NOVEMBER 13, 1903 ......................................................................... 13 1885 AND 1888 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ........................................................................................ 15 1893 AND 1898 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ........................................................................................ 15 1918 (POST FIRE) AND 1929 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS (COURTESY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY).............................................................................................................................................. 15 M. VONSEN CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH REPUBLICAN PRESS, APRIL 2, 1930 ................................................ 16 MERCER'S FEEDS ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DISPATCH, MAY 15, 1927 ............................................................ 16 H & W FEED CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 9, 1956 ............................................. 16 1937, UKIAH MARKETING MOVIE, MINUTE 7:02 AND 7:06 ............................................................................... 17 1938 AERIAL OF UKIAH (COURTESY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY) ....................................... 17 1948, PHOTOGRAPH BY PHYLLIS BARTOLOMIE (COURTESY OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY)18 1948, PHOTOGRAPH BY PHYLLIS BARTOLOMIE (COURTESY OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY)18 ADVERTISEMENT FOR "PIET'S ANTIEKS," UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, JANUARY 20, 1980 ....................................... 19 1957 AERIAL OF UKIAH (CARTWRIGHT AERIAL SURVEYS, CAS-1957) ............................................................ 19 WEST ELEVATION (FACING SOUTH MAIN STREET) .......................................................................................... 29 NORTHWEST CORNER, ENTRANCE................................................................................................................. 29 NORTHWEST CORNER, FRONT DOOR ............................................................................................................. 30 NORTHWEST CORNER, DOOR AND JALOUSIE TRANSOM (NOT ORIGINAL) ........................................................... 30 NORTHWEST CORNER, DETAIL OF METAL AWNING........................................................................................... 31 WEST ELEVATION, WINDOW WITH MULTI LITE TRANSOM (ORIGINAL).................................................................. 31 WEST ELEVATION, MIDDLE WINDOW WITH JALOUSIE TRANSOM (CA 1963)......................................................... 32 WEST ELEVATION, SOUTH WINDOW WITH JALOUSIE TRANSOM (CA 1963).......................................................... 32 WEST ELEVATION, CEILING OF AWNING .......................................................................................................... 33 WEST ELEVATION, CONDITION OF PRESSED TIN .............................................................................................. 33 WEST ELEVATION, FALSE FRONTING (LOOKING NE)........................................................................................ 34 WEST ELEVATION FALSE FRONT (LOOKING NW) ............................................................................................. 34 WEST ELEVATION, FALSE FRONT (LOOKING SW) ............................................................................................ 35 SOUTH ELEVATION ....................................................................................................................................... 35 SOUTH ELEVATION, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DETAIL ...................................................................................... 36 SOUTH ELEVATION, PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE AT SE CORNER ........................................................................... 36 EAST ELEVATION, MURAL .............................................................................................................................. 37 EAST ELEVATION, MURAL SIGNATURE ............................................................................................................ 37 NORTH ELEVATION (FRONTING PERKINS STREET) .......................................................................................... 38 NORTH ELEVATION, INFILLED BAY AT NE CORNER........................................................................................... 38 NORTH ELEVATION, MURAL AND WINDOWS ..................................................................................................... 39 SETTING, NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH............................................................................................................... 39 SETTING, LOOKING SOUTH ON SOUTH MAIN STREET ...................................................................................... 40

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
4 SETTING, SW CORNER OF PERKINS AND SOUTH MAIN STREETS ..................................................................... 40 SETTING, LOOKING WEST ON PERKINS STREET .............................................................................................. 41 SETTING, NW CORNER OF PERKINS AND SOUTH MAIN STREETS ..................................................................... 41 SETTING, WEST SIDE OF MAIN STREET, LOOKING NW FROM PROJECT AREA .................................................... 42 SETTING, NEIGHBOR TO NORTH (NE CORNER OF PERKINS AND MAIN STREETS) ............................................... 42 SETTING, LOOKING EAST ON PERKINS STREET (NORTH SIDE).......................................................................... 43 SETTING, LOOKING EAST ON PERKINS STREET (SOUTH SIDE) .......................................................................... 43 SETTING, PARKING LOT AND NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST ...................................................................................... 44

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
5 Project Overview & Executive Summary
Prospective buyers of the property at 101 South Main Street in Ukiah, California, are assessing the historic character of the building as part of the decision making process. They hired Alice P. Duffee, an architectural historian and preservation planner with APD Preservation LLC, to evaluate the historic character of the property and identify what features, if any, render the property historically significant. This report is the result of that evaluation.

The parcel was the site of early commercial development in Ukiah, dating to 1857 when Absalom Tidwell Perkins built a livery on this corner of the country crossroads. That original building was replaced by a second livery/hay barn in 1890. Ukiah’s June 1917 fire destroyed that second building, and a third structure was built on the site y bat least by 1921. From 1921 to 1963 the building served as a feed store under four different businesses. With the modernization of Ukiah, the building was converted to retail space in 1963.

Modifications made to that building at that time included infilling two open bays with windows, replacing the front doors, replacing and reconfiguring the awning, and installing an additional window. The false front that most defines the building was modified in 1938, but retains its basic early twentieth century appearance.

The building has remained in retail use almost continuously since 1963.

The building at 101 South Main Street dates from 1921, is included in Ukiah’s 1985 “Historic Resources Survey,” and is included in the State of California’s “Built Environmental Resource Database (BERD)” with a designation of “5S2,” meaning that a local government has recognized the resource as “eligible for local listing or designation.” Where the previous local survey form suggests that the building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), I defer to the State of California’s more recent determination that the building is significant at the LOCAL level and not the national level.

Further evaluation and research of the property confirms that the information in the earlier reconnaissance level survey is correct and that the building appears to be significant for its association with the post-fire redevelopment of Ukiah (criterion 1). Its period of significance is 1921 (its inferred construction date), and the building retains enough physical integrity to convey its early twentieth century commercial origins, which render it historic. The building in its current dilapidated state, however, does not appear to be significant for its architectural merit.

Based on extensive research of the development of this parcel, it is my professional opinion that the building qualifies as an historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The character defining features of this historic building are as follows:
• False front with pronounced box cornice on west elevation • One-story
• Rectangular footprint with clipped corner at northwest corner • Entrance on the clipped northwest corner
• Gable roof
• Pressed tin siding on west and north elevations, corrugated metal siding on east and south • Irregular window placement
Methodology
On January 7, 2020, Alice P. Duffee undertook a field survey of the property to conduct a visual review and assessment of the building. Records searches were conducted at the following repositories, as well as a variety of online research websites:
• Mendocino County Recorder’s office
• Mendocino County Historical Society
• City of Ukiah Building Department
• Northwest Information Center (NWIC)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
6 • San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) online research databases • California Digital Newspaper Collection
• Online Archive of California and a variety of online research websites Evaluator qualifications
Alice P. Duffee of APD Preservation LLC conducted the evaluation of the historic character of the building at 101 South Main Street in Ukiah, California. Ms. Duffee holds a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation from the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Arts in Architectural History from the University of Virginia. She has worked in the field of Cultural Resources Management for thirty years, twenty-six of which have been in Northern California. For the past eight years she has focused her attention on projects in the North Bay. Ms. Duffee exceeds the standards for “Architectural Historian” as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 61) and is listed in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as a consultant qualified to work in the fields of Architectural History and History.

Site Location
The building at 101 South Main Street sits on the southeast corner of the intersection of Perkins Street and South Main Street on the east side of the City of Ukiah. Both Perkins and South Main streets have multiple lanes of two-way traffic; South Main Street has limited street parking on the west side. The area is medium density commercial structures from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries interspersed with sparse landscaping.

Figure 1: Parcel Map 2-23

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
7 Figure 2: Aerial View of Project Area, Google Maps 2020 Description
The commercial building on the property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Perkins Street and South Main Street, fronting on both streets. It is one-story with a roughly rectangular footprint, with the northwest corner clipped to accommodate the primary entrance. The gable-roofed, wood frame structure is clad in corrugated metal and capped with corrugated metal roofing. The west and north elevations are faced in pressed tin to simulate rusticated, coursed, ashlar stone (see photo 37).

The west elevation, fronting South Main street, is dominated by a false front that extends above the gable end of the roof and is capped with a pronounced box cornice. While the street-facing side of the false front is faced with pressed tin, the rear is faced with corrugated metal (see photos 38, 39 and 40). The element is purely decorative. The 1937 marketing video of Ukiah indicates that, originally, this feature wrapped around both street-facing facades of the building. A 1938 aerial, however, shows that the northern section, facing Perkins Street, had been removed (see figures 22 and 23 below).

A corrugated metal awning extends the length of the west elevation and wraps around the northwest corner to shelter the primary entrance. A scalloped detail obscures the edge of the awning and adds a modicum of visual interest (see photo 32). The awning appears to be a modern replacement for a previous awning that appears in the 1937 video.

This elevation has three windows. The northernmost window appears in the 1937 video and appears to be original to the building. It is a fixed wood sash, single-paned window topped by a 6-paned transom window.

The frame is simple board surround with a slightly projecting sill (see photo 33). The middle and southern windows appear to be later additions to the building, most likely when the building was converted from a feed store to a retail shop in 1963. The middle window replaced an open bay, and consists of a 2-paned, fixed sash set in an aluminum frame. A three-part, glass, jalousie transom extends across the width of the window. The surrounding frame is similar to the original window, except that the newer window has no

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
8 projecting sill. The southern-most window matches the middle window and appears to have been installed in 1963 to provide more light to the interior spaces (see photo 35).

The primary entrance is on the clipped northwest corner and consists of a pair of half-glass French doors with raised panels beneath arched glass panes (see photos 30 and 31). The door has a glass, jalousie transom and simple board frame. The doors are not original to the building, as evidenced by images from 1937 and 1948 (see figures 22 and 25 below).

The north elevation, fronting Perkins Street, has three original windows at irregular intervals and an infilled bay on the eastern corner. The original windows all have multi-lite, wood transoms. The western-most window is identical to the flanking window on the west elevation. To its east lies a set of three multi-paned windows framed as a single unit. Another single-paned, wood frame window is roughly centered on the elevation (see photos 46 and 48). The bay at the eastern corner has been infilled with corrugated metal and a small, single pane, wood framed window (see photo 47). The building’s concrete foundation is visible on this elevation.

The east elevation has no openings and is covered with a mural of ionic columns that was painted in July 1982 by Neil Phillip Anderson and Rita Lowitt, according to the signature at the bottom right of the artwork (see photos 44 and 45).

The rear of the building (the south elevation) has a variety of mechanical equipment and a single pedestrian door at the eastern corner. A simple wood porch with four wood steps accesses the paneled rear door (see photos 41, 42 and 43).

Historical Context of Ukiah
The project area lies within the early “Rancho Yokaya,” which was an 8-square-league (35,541-acre) tract of land granted by Mexican Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Juárez in 1845 in payment for Juarez’s decade of service to the Mexican government. The grant extended sixteen miles along the Russian River, from the southern end of Ukiah Valley to the northern end of Redwood Valley and ranged from one to two miles wide. It encompassed all of present day Ukiah.

The area remained sparsely settled by either Mexican or European settlers through the first half of the nineteenth century, though the Pomo Indians maintained a strong presence in the area. Around 1856 Samuel Lowry built a log cabin near what is now the northeast corner of Perkins and Main Street, and became Ukiah Valley’s first white settler. Lowry was born in Connecticut around 1818 and had come to Placer County with the Gold Rush.1 2
In 1859 Mendocino County was officially carved out of Sonoma County, and Ukiah was selected as the county seat. The town was nestled between the coastal range of mountains and the Russian River, in the heart of the Ukiah Valley. The name Ukiah came from the Indian word “Yo’Kia,” meaning deep valley.

Rathburn erected the first courthouse at a cost of $7,000.3 1 1850 U.S. Census and 1852 California Census. (www.ancestry.com) 2 Lyman L. Palmer, History of Mendocino County, California : Comprising its Geography, Geology, Topography, Climatography, Springs and Timber (San Francisco, CA: Alley, Bowen, 1880), page 475. 3 C. A. Menefee, Historical and Descriptive Sketch Book of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino (Napa, CA: Reporter Publishing House, 1873), page 341.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
9 The town grew steadily, though it remained a
relatively remote outpost in the hinterlands of
Northern California for several more decades.

Through the 1860s-1880s, access was
restricted to overland routes, with San Francisco
being a two-day journey via stagecoach.4
The area around the intersection of the current
Perkins and Main streets was one of the earliest
settlement locations for the town. Lowry had built
his log cabin in this location, and then sold the
160-acre parcel to Absalom Tidwell Perkins in
1857.5 6
Perkins, his wife Elizabeth, and their five children
relocated to Ukiah from Yuba County, north of
Sacramento. 7 Within a year, Perkins built a
house for his family near the southwest corner of
the current Perkins and Main streets, took over
Lowry’s blacksmith shop on the northeast corner
of the intersection, built a store to the west on
Main Street and built a schoolhouse south of
Perkins Street and west of State Street.8 On the
southeast corner of Perkins and Main, on the
site of the current Project Area, Perkins built a
“feed stable for the accommodation of freighting
teams.”9 By 1860, Ukiah had approximately 25
dwellings and a budding commercial district. 10
A.T. Perkins was possibly “the most important
man of the region in those days.”11 In 1863 he launched a local newspaper, the Constitutional Democrat.

Perkins was also a silent partner of “one of the leading mercantile establishments of early days in Ukiah.”12 His blacksmith/wagon shop was considered the largest on the north coast. In 1873 he shut down his blacksmith shop and turned his attention to his dry goods store.13 A.T. Perkins, however, continued to work as a blacksmith, and was mortally kicked by a horse he was shoeing. After a two-week period of paralysis, A.T. Perkins died in Ukiah on August 27, 1879.14
Meanwhile, the town continued on its trajectory of steady growth. Ukiah was officially incorporated in 1872 and a more substantial courthouse replaced the earlier structure. The new building was quite a bit grander, and cost the county $40,000.15 County Court convened in the new hall for the first time in March 1873. At this time the town boasted a variety of stores, four churches, seven saloons, and two livery stable. Ukiah’s streets were surveyed and laid out in 1876.
4 Palmer, page 481.
5 Aurelius O. Carpenter and Percy H. Millberry, History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California, with Biographical Sketches (Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company, 1914), page 71. 6 Palmer, page 475. 7 Palmer states that the family moved from Marysville, CA, (page 476), though a genealogical search indicates that their daughter Emily Saline Perkins was born in Wheatland (Yuba County) in November 1856, not Marysville. Both towns, however, are in Yuba County north of Sacramento.
8 Palmer, page 477. 9 Palmer, page 480.
10 Palmer, page 480.
11 Frank L. Perkins, letter to his nephew, Morgan L. Perkins, March 11, 1945, page 4. (www.ancestry.com). 12 Frank L. Perkins, page 4.
13 Mendocino Democrat, 10/25/1873. Courtesy of the Mendocino County Historical Society. 14 Frank L. Perkins, page 4. 15 Menefee, page 341.

Figure 3: 1866 map of Northern California, Sterling M.

Holdredge

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
10 16
Figure 4: Absalom and Mary Perkins, 1859
17 Figure 5: Perkins Children, 1859
Ukiah’s sparse population and relative remoteness delayed the arrival of the railroad. On August 30, 1869, San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad (SF & NPRR) drove in its first railroad stake in Petaluma; it reached Santa Rosa in 1870 and Cloverdale in 1872. In 1886 the Cloverdale and Ukiah Railroad was formed to extend the SF & NPRR north to Ukiah; the line was completed in 1889, twenty years after it began in Petaluma. The improved transportation network did open up Mendocino County to greater commercial and industrial growth, though the population did not expand rapidly. 18 Figure 6: Ukiah Population, 1880 to 2010
16 www.ancestry.com
17 www.ancestry.com
18 "Census of Population and Housing", Census.gov.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
11 On Monday, June 1917, the town of Ukiah changed forever. At 3:00 pm a fire was spotted at a Chinese restaurant on the west side of State Street, between Perkins and Church streets. The flames quickly consumed the modest frame structure and
spread to the adjoining Fashion Livery on the north. Strong winds pushed the flames east, forging a two-block wide path of destruction from State street to the railroad tracks. The area was rebuilt over the next decade, showcasing the resilience of the community.

Figure 7: Headline of Ukiah Dispatch, June 22, 1917
Figure 8: Post fire photograph of the west side of State Street, between Perkins and Church Streets (courtesy of Ed Bold)
Like communities up and down the west coast, growth of Ukiah skyrocketed after World War II as veterans returned home and took advantage of numerous government programs designed to promote home ownership and community stability. Between 1940 and 1950, the population of Ukiah nearly doubled, jumping from 3,731 to 6,120.

Today, Ukiah boasts a population over 16,000 people. It has a solid commercial district spiraling out from State and Perkins streets.

Figure 9: 1958 USGS Quad, Ukiah, Ca

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
12 History of 101 South Main Street
From its earliest days, the project area has been in the midst of Ukiah’s commercial heart. Beginning in 1856, Samuel Lowry built a blacksmith shop on what today is the northeast corner of Main and Perkins Streets, across from the project area. In 1857, Lowry sold a 160-acre parcel, including the project area, to the pioneering Perkins family who was relocating to the area from Arkansas via Yuba County. A. T. Perkins ran his own blacksmith shop out of the facility on the property, and built a supporting “feed stable for the accommodation of freighting teams” across the road on the site of the current project area.19 In 1878, Perkins sold the parcel to Robert McKindley, who continued to run the livery until 1885, when David Frost purchased the property. The 1885 and 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps show two adjoining, 1-story, wood-frame buildings, one used for hay and one as a wagon shed.

I.N. Stapp and W.J. Ellis purchased the property in 1887. Wallace Johnson Ellis was a Civil War Veteran who relocated to Ukiah around 1876, following his marriage to his second wife, Orlena A. Brown Ellis.

In 1889, Ellis tore down A.T. Perkins’ original stable on the project area, and in 1890 he bought out his business partner.20 By 1891, the newspaper reported that Ellis was erecting a new, 26’ x 50’ building for Buckle & Keenan on the site. The building was intended to be two stories, but within a week the Dispatch Democrat reported that the building was reduced to one story.21 While the corner building (on the project area) was a blacksmith shop, Ellis operated his “Ellis Feed Barn” on the rest of the property (see Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps below). George Clark took over operation of the “Ellis Feed Barn” in 1903.

W. J. Ellis died October 7, 1909, leaving the property to his wife, Orelena.

Orlena Ellis continued to rent out the commercial buildings on the property.

In June 1917 an epic fire cleared the entire block bounded by Perkins, Main, Church and the railroad, including the project area. In July 1921, following the fire, the Ukiah Republican Press reported that Mrs. W. J.

Ellis planned to rebuild the structure, which would measure 30’ x 150’.22 It is not clear if Ellis actually did rebuild the property, though.

In October 1920 Orlena Ellis sold
the property to William Martin Cox,
though the deed does not specify
whether there was a structure on it.

Cox was born in 1860 in Ukiah,
and was a general merchant. Most
notably, he operated a hardware
store.
19 Palmer, page 481. 20 Dispatch Democrat, June 6, 1889, page 3 column 3. Courtesy of the Mendocino Historical Society. 21 Dispatch Democrat, December 4, 1891. Courtesy of the Mendocino County Historical Society. 22 Ukiah Republican Press, July 20, 1917. Courtesy of the Mendocino County Historical Society The Mendocino Democrat (Ukiah, California) · 1 Nov 1873, Sat · Page 4 Downloaded on Jan 17, 2020
no Democrat ad for AT Perkins 11/1/1873
ee
7, 2020
wspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 11: Perkins ad,
Mendocino Democrat,
November 1, 1873
Figure 12: McKindley Livery, Ukiah
City Press, August 9, 1878
Ukiah City Press (Ukiah, California) · 9 Aug 1878, Fri · Page 4 Downloaded on Jan 21, 2020
Ukiah City Press McKindley hay yard
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 21, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 10: Ukiah Daily
Journal, November 27, 1891
Ukiah Daily Journal (Ukiah, California) · 27 Nov 1891, Fri · Page 3 Downloaded on Jan 21, 2020
Ukiah Daily Journal 11/27/1891 Ellis building new
structure
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 21, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
13 By 1921 the building was standing and was the new home to Holz Feeds. The 1929 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows the building on the site, in its existing configuration, including the clipped northwest corner (see figure 16 below). That building still stands on the site at 101 South Main Street and is the project area.

Stamped sheet metal had been available since the 1870s, when it was showcased by Kittredge Cornice & Ornament Company at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition. The popularity of this cladding material, as well as full metal storefronts, soared as a result of more economical fabrication methods and the expanded distribution channels presented by the transcontinental railroad in the 1880s. Manufacturers blanketed the country with hundreds of thousands of catalogs, promoting their metal storefronts as more durable and fire resistant than traditional wood clapboards, as well an economical means of ornamentation. 1905 George L. Mesker & Co. Catalog
Figure 14: "Ellis Feed Barn," Ukiah
Dispatch, November 13, 1903
Ukiah Dispatch Democrat (Ukiah, California) · 13 Nov 1903, Fri · Page 3 Downloaded on Jan 21, 2020
Ukiah Dispatch democrat. 11/13/1903. Ellis Feed Barn
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 21, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 13: Holz Feed Co. Advertisement,
Ukiah Dispatch Democrat, June 24, 1921
Ukiah Dispatch Democrat, Ukiah, California, US
June 24, 1921, Page 8
https://newspaperarchive.com/advertisement-clipping-jun-24-1921-1512887/

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
14 Between 1870 and 1930 there were more than forty-five architectural metal manufacturers in ten states.

The majority of these firms were located along rail lines near raw materials in states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and New York. By 1905, George L. Mesker & Co. was advertising that his products were in every state of the country.

By the second decade of the century, however, the popularity of the metal storefronts was waning. Cox’s metal building on South Main Street was at the tail end of the trend.

Cox died from injuries sustained in a car accident on July 6, 1921. His widow, Eugenia, inherited the property, which was eventually sold to W.T. Robuson after her death in 1937.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
15 Figure 15: 1885 and 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps

Figure 16: 1893 and 1898 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps

Figure 17: 1918 (post fire) and 1929 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (courtesy of Mendocino County Historical Society)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
16 The building remained in constant use as a feed store from 1921 until 1963, through four different businesses: Holz Feed Co., H & W Feed Co., M. Vonsen Co., and Mercer Feed Co. The building’s proximity to the railroad depot on the east side of the block made it an attractive commercial venture.

A 1937 marketing film made to promote and showcase local businesses in Ukiah includes footage of the building as it appeared shortly after its construction (see figure 20 below). The building has been slightly modified since then.

The fenestration on the north elevation retains its 1937 appearance, though the west side has changed with the open bay being replaced by two windows. The primary entrance has also been changed from its original 6-paneled doors with multi-paned transom to the current half-glass door with jalousie transom (see photo 31). The awning has been replaced and redesigned to wrap around the northwest corner to shelter the entrance. An aerial photograph from 1938 indicates that the false front across the north elevation was removed between 1937 and 1938 (see figure 21 below).

Ukiah Republican Press (Ukiah, California) · 2 Apr 1930, Wed · Page 2 Downloaded on Jan 17, 2020
Ukiah Republican Press 4/2/1930 M Vonsen Co in Hol z
warehouse
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Fri, Jan 17, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 18: M. Vonsen Co. advertisement,
Ukiah Republican Press, April 2, 1930
Ukiah Daily Journal (Ukiah, California) · 9 Nov 1956, Fri · Page 7 Downloaded on Jan 21, 2020
ercer Feeds AD Ukiah Daily Journal 11/9/56
ped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 21, 2020
right © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 19: Mercer's Feeds
Advertisement, Ukiah
Dispatch, May 15, 1927
Figure 20: H & W Feed Co. advertisement,
Ukiah Daily Journal, November 9, 1956
Ukiah Dispatch Democrat (Ukiah, California) · 15 Apr 1927, Fri · Page 7 Downloaded on Jan 21, 2020
H&W Feed Co advertisement Ukiah Dispatch 5/15/27
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 21, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
17 Figure 21: 1937, Ukiah Marketing Movie, minute 7:02 and 7:06 Figure 22: 1938 Aerial of Ukiah (courtesy of Mendocino County Historical Society)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
18 Figure 23: 1948, photograph by Phyllis Bartolomie (courtesy of the Mendocino County Historical Society) Figure 24: 1948, photograph by Phyllis Bartolomie (courtesy of the Mendocino County Historical Society)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
19 Figure 26: 1957 Aerial of Ukiah (Cartwright Aerial Surveys, CAS-1957) In 1963 the building was transformed into retail space and became the site of “Schuler’s Surplus Sales.” A building permit from July 17, 1962, states that air conditioning was installed in the structure, supporting the hypothesis that the building was repurposed at this time. It is probable that the bay on the west elevation was replaced with two windows at this time to better enclose the space for retail use. The use of jalousie transoms on these two windows also supports this date, given the popularity of jalousie windows in the 1950s and 1960s. The front door appears to have been replaced at this time with the current half-glass French doors with jalousie transom. These replacement doors provided significantly more light to the interior.

This change of use was indicative of the changing face of Ukiah at mid-century. The modern town needed general retail space instead of feed stores, wagon sheds and blacksmith shops.

The building has remained in consistent use as a commercial facility since 1963, cycling through at least seven tenants, as outlined in the “Table of Tenants” below. The current business, “Dragon’s Lair,” has been in the building since 1995.

Ukiah Daily Journal (Ukiah, California) · 20 Jan 1980, Sun · Page 25 Downloaded on Jan 7, 2020
Piet's Antieks 1/20/80 Ukiah Daily Journal
Clipped By:
aliceduffee
Tue, Jan 7, 2020
Copyright © 2020 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Figure 25: Advertisement for "Piet's Antieks,"
Ukiah Daily Journal, January 20, 1980

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
20 Permit records for the property include:
• 7/17/1962 Installation of air conditioning
• 3/4/1985 Retroactive permit for interior and mechanical modifications • 4/18/1985 Interior modifications for Main Street Wine & Cheese Table of Owners
Date Owner Notes Source
1845 Cayetano Juarez Rancho Yokaya (8 square leagues) Hoffman, 1862. 1856 Samuel Lowry 160 acres Carpenter & Milberry, p. 475 1857 A.T. Perkins Carpenter & Milberry, p. 475
7/18/1878 Robert McKindley [sic] 130’ (E-W) x 92’ (N-S), Perkins & Main
Deed Book 18, p. 358
8/4/1885 David Frost Deed Book 36, p. 254
6/25/1887 I.N. Stapp & W.J. Ellis Deed Book 40, p. 536
9/20/1890 W.J. Ellis Deed Book 53, p. 148
10/25/1920 W.M. Cox 207.15’ (E-W) x 213.95’ (N-S) Deed Book 161, p. 338 3/21/1922 Eugenia B. Cox (same) Deed Book 167, p. 449
2/15/1937 W.T. Robuson 151.15’ (E-W) x 138.95’ (N-S) Official Records Book 113, p. 241
3/10/1957 McCarty’s a copartnership(same) Deed Book 475, p. 78 1/27/1970 Jing Quan (1/2) & Phillip
Quan (1/2)
Deed Book 809, p. 514
4/6/2011 Rosita Quan Record 2011-04877
1/29/2016 Todd & Noel Schapmire Record 2016-01157
Table of Tenants
Date Tenant
1921 Holz Feed Co.
1923-1929 H&W Feed Co.
1930-1956 M. Vonsen Co. (Hay, Grain, Flour, Feed)
1956-1961 Mercer Feed Co.
1963-1967 Schuler’s Surplus Sales
1969-1972 UVARC Thrift Shop
1973 – 1978 Ukiah Valley Thrift Shop
1980-1985 Piet’s Antieks
1985-1991 Main Street Wine and Cheese
1992 Political Campaign headquarters
1995 Dragon’s Lair

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
21 Determination of Eligibility
The California Environmental Quality Act (PRC §21084.1) and its associated guidelines for implementation (CCR Title 14, Chapter 3, sections 15000 et seq.) defines historic resources as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that, in general, meets at least one of the following four criteria:23

1. listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1 Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq);

2. determined eligible for listing the California Register by the State Historic Preservation office;

3. included in a local register of historical resources (as defined in PRC §5024.1(g); OR

4. determined by the lead agency, through the presence of substantial evidence, to be historically significant because of its association with significant events, association with significant persons, architectural distinction, or potential to yield information important in history or prehistory.

The building at 101 South Main Street is identified in the 1985 “Ukiah Historic Resource Survey” and the 1999 “City of Ukiah Architectural Survey” as historically significant. It is included in the State of California’s “Built Environmental Resource Database (BERD)” with a designation of “5S2,” meaning that a local government has recognized the resource as “eligible for local listing or designation.” Where the previous local inventory suggests that the building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), I defer to the State of California’s assessment that the building is significant at the LOCAL level and not the national level. (See Appendix B for copies of local inventory forms.)

CRITERIA
According to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), a building, structure or object is eligible for listing in the California Register if it meets one or more of the four following criteria:24 Criteria 101 South Main Street

1. Associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns
of local or regional history or the cultural
heritage of California or the United States.

This commercial building is directly associated
with the post-fire, early twentieth century
commercial development of the east side of
Ukiah.

2. Associated with the lives of persons
important to local, California or national
history.

While the property was initially developed by
one of Ukiah’s founding fathers (A.T. Perkins),
the current building was built after that period.

It is not directly associated with any persons
significant to local, state or national history.
23 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IFFC7DA00D48511DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=Full&transitionType=Default &contextData=(sc.Default)
24 Pub. Res. Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
22 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a
master or possesses high artistic values.

The utilitarian building is not architecturally
distinctive and does not possess high artistic
values.

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield,
information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the
nation
Even though no archeological surveys have been
conducted on this site specifically, there remains
a possibility that buried archaeological deposits
could be present and that accidental discovery
could occur. In keeping with the CEQA guidelines,
if such archaeological remains are unearthed,
work at the place of discovery should be halted
immediately until a qualified archaeologist can
evaluate the finds. Should archeological
resources be discovered, avoidance and
preservation in place would be the preferred forms
of mitigation.

Prehistoric archaeological indicators include:
obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools;
grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and
handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock
outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and
locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may
contain a combination of any of the previously
listed items, with the possible addition of bone and
shell remains and fire-affected stones.

Historic period site indicates generally include:
fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects;
milled and split lumber; and structure and feature
remains, such as building foundations and
discrete trash deposits (e.g. wells, privy pits,
dumps).

INTEGRITY ANALYSIS
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic significance. It consists of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.25 Integrity Element 101 South Main Street Conclusion
Location (“place
where the property
was built”)
The building retains its integrity of location as it
has not been moved or relocated. INTACT
Design
(“combination of
elements that
Changes to the building include removing the
false front across the north elevation, replacing
the awning in a similar location, infilling a bay at INTACT 25 http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
23 create the form,
plan, space,
structure, and style”
(NPS)
the northeast corner of the north elevation, infilling
a bay on the west elevation and adding two
windows to the west elevation.

These changes, however, do not impede the
structure’s ability to convey its 1921 origins as a
commercial building. At the same time, the
building retains its basic utilitarian design.

Setting (“physical
environment”)
The nineteenth and early-twentieth century
commercial setting has been gradually converted
into a modern commercial intersection. Only two
buildings from the early twentieth century (post
1917 fire) remain to tell the story of the commercial
history of this block.

COMPROMISED
Materials
The original materials remain predominantly intact
on all four elevations, though they have been
patched and replaced in-kind over the past
century.

INTACT
Workmanship
(“evidence of labor
and skill”)
The utilitarian building does not display notable
workmanship. N/A
Feeling (“expression
of the aesthetic or
historic sense of a
particular period of
time”)
The site itself retains its basic light
industrial/commercial feeling, though the
surrounding area has been altered. Almost all of
the other light industrial buildings in the area have
been demolished and replaced with modern
commercial buildings, including the mid-century
post office across the street and the modern
buildings directly east and south of the project
area. The block no longer services agricultural
functions of the surrounding area.

INTACT
Association (“direct
link between an
important historic
event or person”)
The property directly retains its early commercial
associations. The building appears basically as it
did when it was built around 1921, with minor
changes to the fenestration, roof line and
entrances.

INTACT

CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES
The National Park Service defines character and “character defining features” as:
those visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building. Character-defining elements include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment.26
26 Lee H. Nelson, FAIA, Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character (Washington, D.C. National Park Service, 1988), p. 1.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
24 The following table addresses the standard elements of “character defining features” as applied to 101 South Main Street.

Feature 101 South Main Street
Shape 1-story. Rectangular footprint. Clipped at NW corner.

Roof and roof features Gabled roof with false front on the west elevation fronting South Main Street.

Openings
Entrance at the clipped NW corner. Irregularly spaced window openings of varying sizes and shapes across the west and north elevations. No windows on the south or east sides.

Note: The current front door is a replacement feature in the location of the original doors ,and the southern windows on the west elevation are not original to the building. Both of these modifications date to 1963.

Projections
Porch at SE corner. Metal awning with corrugated metal roof across the west elevation.

Note: The current awning is a replacement awning in
roughly the same location as the original feature.

Trim & Secondary Features None.

Materials (from a distance) Metal.

Setting Medium Density Commercial.

Materials (at close range) Pressed tin. Corrugated metal.

Craft Details None.

Conclusion
The building at 101 South Main Street dates from 1921, is included in Ukiah’s 1985 “Historic Resources Survey,” and is included in the State of California’s “Built Environmental Resource Database (BERD)” with a designation of “5S2,” meaning that a local government has recognized the resource as “eligible for local listing or designation.” Where the previous local inventory suggests that the building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), I defer to the State of California’s more recent determination that the building is significant at the LOCAL level and not the national level.

Further evaluation and research of the property confirms that the information in the earlier reconnaissance level survey is correct and that the building appears to be significant for its association with the post-fire redevelopment of Ukiah (criterion 1). Its period of significance is 1921 (its inferred construction date), and the building retains enough physical integrity to convey its early twentieth century commercial origins, which render it historic. The dipalidated utilitarian building does not appear to be significant for its architectural merit (criterion 3).

Based on extensive research of the development of this parcel, it is my professional opinion that the building qualifies as an historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
25 Resources Consulted
Blumenson, John J-G. Identifying American Architecture. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.

California Office of Historic Preservation. “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” March 1995. (http://scic.org/docs/OHP/manual95.pdf)
Carpenter, Aurelius O. and Percy H. Millberry. History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California, with Biographical Sketches. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company, 1914.

Ching, Francis D.K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. Hoboken, NNJY: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Clark, Clifford Edward, Jr. The American Family Home, 1800-1960. Chapel Hill. NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Hi Bob! Media and William French. Historic Ukiah, CA 1937 Film. Preserved by the Held-Poage Research Library, Ukiah, CA. (https://youtu.be/z4e2IiULoCw) Hoffman, Ogden. Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. San Francisco, CA: Numa Hubert, 1862.

Holdredge, Sterling M. Guidebook of the Pacific (map of northern California). San Francisco, CA: S. M.

Holdredge, 1866.

Howard, Hugh. How Old is This House? New York, NY: The Noonday Press, 1989.

Howe, Jeffery, ed. The Houses We Live In. San Diego, CA: Thunder Bay Press, 2002.

Kirker, Harold. California’s Architectural Frontier: Style and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. 1960.

Kirker, Harold. Old Forms on a New Land: California Architecture in Perspective. Niwot, CO: Roberts Rinehart Publishers. 1991.

McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY: Knopf, 2015.

Menefee, C.A. Historical and Descriptive Sketch Book of Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino. Napa, CA: Reporter Publishing House, 1873.

Morton, W. Brown III; Hume, Gary L; Weeks, Kay D; Jandl, H. Ward. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. “National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places.

Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character—Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their character. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1988.

Palmer, Lyman L. History of Mendocino County, California : Comprising its Geography, Geology, Topography, Climatography, Springs and Timber. San Francisco, CA: Alley, Bowen, 1880.

Perkins, Frank L. Letter to nephew, Morgan L. Perkins. 11 March 1945. TS. (www.ancestry.com).

Phillips, Steven J. Old house Dictionary. Washington, DC; The Preservation Press, 1994.

Republican Press.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
26 Rice, S. H. Map of the Town of Ukiah City, Mendocino County CA. September & October 1888 (on file in Mendocino County Recorder’s Office).

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (1885, 1888, 1893, 1898, 1918, 1929).

Ukiah Daily Journal.

Ukiah Dispatch Democrat.

Ukiah News.

Online resources:
www.accessible.com hld.huntington.org/cdm/ www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu www.ancestry.com www.loc.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
www.archives.com www.cdnc.ucr.edu www.newspapers.com
www.archives.org www.geneaologybank.com www.parcelquest.com www.newspaperarchives.com
https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
27 Appendix A: Photographs
FIGURE 1: PARCEL MAP 2-23 ......................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 2: AERIAL VIEW OF PROJECT AREA, GOOGLE MAPS 2020.................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3: 1866 MAP OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STERLING M. HOLDREDGE ................................................... 9 FIGURE 4: ABSALOM AND MARY PERKINS, 1859 ............................................................................................ 10 FIGURE 5: PERKINS CHILDREN, 1859............................................................................................................ 10 FIGURE 6: UKIAH POPULATION, 1880 TO 2010 .............................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 7: HEADLINE OF UKIAH DISPATCH, JUNE 22, 1917............................................................................. 11 FIGURE 8: POST FIRE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WEST SIDE OF STATE STREET, BETWEEN PERKINS AND CHURCH STREETS (COURTESY OF ED BOLD) ....................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 9: 1958 USGS QUAD, UKIAH, CA..................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 10: UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 27, 1891.............................................................................. 12 FIGURE 11: PERKINS AD, MENDOCINO DEMOCRAT, NOVEMBER 1, 1873.......................................................... 12 FIGURE 12: MCKINDLEY LIVERY, UKIAH CITY PRESS, AUGUST 9, 1878........................................................... 12 FIGURE 14: HOLZ FEED CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DISPATCH DEMOCRAT, JUNE 24, 1921 .......................... 13 FIGURE 13: "ELLIS FEED BARN," UKIAH DISPATCH, NOVEMBER 13, 1903 ....................................................... 13 FIGURE 16: 1885 AND 1888 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ...................................................................... 15 FIGURE 17: 1893 AND 1898 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ...................................................................... 15 FIGURE 18: 1918 (POST FIRE) AND 1929 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS (COURTESY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY)............................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 19: M. VONSEN CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH REPUBLICAN PRESS, APRIL 2, 1930............................... 16 FIGURE 20: MERCER'S FEEDS ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DISPATCH, MAY 15, 1927 .......................................... 16 FIGURE 21: H & W FEED CO. ADVERTISEMENT, UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 9, 1956 ........................... 16 FIGURE 22: 1937, UKIAH MARKETING MOVIE, MINUTE 7:02 AND 7:06 ............................................................. 17 FIGURE 23: 1938 AERIAL OF UKIAH (COURTESY OF MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY) ..................... 17 FIGURE 24: 1948, PHOTOGRAPH BY PHYLLIS BARTOLOMIE (COURTESY OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY).............................................................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 25: 1948, PHOTOGRAPH BY PHYLLIS BARTOLOMIE (COURTESY OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY).............................................................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 26: ADVERTISEMENT FOR "PIET'S ANTIEKS," UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL, JANUARY 20, 1980 ..................... 19 FIGURE 27: 1957 AERIAL OF UKIAH (CARTWRIGHT AERIAL SURVEYS, CAS-1957) .......................................... 19 PHOTO 28: WEST ELEVATION (FACING SOUTH MAIN STREET)......................................................................... 29 PHOTO 29: NORTHWEST CORNER, ENTRANCE................................................................................................ 29 PHOTO 30: NORTHWEST CORNER, FRONT DOOR ............................................................................................ 30 PHOTO 31: NORTHWEST CORNER, DOOR AND JALOUSIE TRANSOM (NOT ORIGINAL) .......................................... 30 PHOTO 32: NORTHWEST CORNER, DETAIL OF METAL AWNING.......................................................................... 31 PHOTO 33: WEST ELEVATION, WINDOW WITH MULTI LITE TRANSOM (ORIGINAL)................................................. 31 PHOTO 34: WEST ELEVATION, MIDDLE WINDOW WITH JALOUSIE TRANSOM (CA 1963) ....................................... 32 PHOTO 35: WEST ELEVATION, SOUTH WINDOW WITH JALOUSIE TRANSOM (CA 1963) ........................................ 32 PHOTO 36: WEST ELEVATION, CEILING OF AWNING......................................................................................... 33 PHOTO 37: WEST ELEVATION, CONDITION OF PRESSED TIN............................................................................. 33 PHOTO 38: WEST ELEVATION, FALSE FRONTING (LOOKING NE)....................................................................... 34 PHOTO 39: WEST ELEVATION FALSE FRONT (LOOKING NW)............................................................................ 34 PHOTO 40: WEST ELEVATION, FALSE FRONT (LOOKING SW)........................................................................... 35 PHOTO 41: SOUTH ELEVATION ...................................................................................................................... 35 PHOTO 42: SOUTH ELEVATION, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DETAIL..................................................................... 36 PHOTO 43: SOUTH ELEVATION, PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE AT SE CORNER.......................................................... 36 PHOTO 44: EAST ELEVATION, MURAL............................................................................................................. 37 PHOTO 45: EAST ELEVATION, MURAL SIGNATURE ........................................................................................... 37 PHOTO 46: NORTH ELEVATION (FRONTING PERKINS STREET)......................................................................... 38 PHOTO 47: NORTH ELEVATION, INFILLED BAY AT NE CORNER ......................................................................... 38

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
28 PHOTO 48: NORTH ELEVATION, MURAL AND WINDOWS.................................................................................... 39 PHOTO 49: SETTING, NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH ............................................................................................. 39 PHOTO 50: SETTING, LOOKING SOUTH ON SOUTH MAIN STREET ..................................................................... 40 PHOTO 51: SETTING, SW CORNER OF PERKINS AND SOUTH MAIN STREETS .................................................... 40 PHOTO 52: SETTING, LOOKING WEST ON PERKINS STREET............................................................................. 41 PHOTO 53: SETTING, NW CORNER OF PERKINS AND SOUTH MAIN STREETS.................................................... 41 PHOTO 54: SETTING, WEST SIDE OF MAIN STREET, LOOKING NW FROM PROJECT AREA ................................... 42 PHOTO 55: SETTING, NEIGHBOR TO NORTH (NE CORNER OF PERKINS AND MAIN STREETS).............................. 42 PHOTO 56: SETTING, LOOKING EAST ON PERKINS STREET (NORTH SIDE)......................................................... 43 PHOTO 57: SETTING, LOOKING EAST ON PERKINS STREET (SOUTH SIDE)......................................................... 43 PHOTO 58: SETTING, PARKING LOT AND NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST..................................................................... 44

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
29 Photo 27: West elevation (facing South Main Street)
Photo 28: Northwest corner, entrance

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
30 Photo 29: Northwest corner, front door
Photo 30: Northwest corner, door and jalousie transom (not original)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
31 Photo 31: Northwest corner, detail of metal awning
Photo 32: West elevation, window with multi lite transom (original)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
32 Photo 33: West elevation, middle window with jalousie transom (ca 1963) Photo 34: West elevation, south window with jalousie transom (ca 1963)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
33 Photo 35: West elevation, ceiling of awning
Photo 36: West elevation, condition of pressed tin

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
34 Photo 37: West elevation, false fronting (looking NE) Photo 38: West elevation false front (looking NW)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
35 Photo 39: West elevation, false front (looking SW)
Photo 40: South elevation

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
36 Photo 41: South elevation, mechanical equipment detail Photo 42: South elevation, pedestrian entrance at SE corner

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
37 Photo 43: East elevation, mural
Photo 44: East elevation, mural signature

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
38 Photo 45: North elevation (fronting Perkins Street)
Photo 46: North elevation, infilled bay at NE corner

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
39 Photo 47: North elevation, mural and windows
Photo 48: Setting, neighbor to the south

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
40 Photo 49: Setting, looking south on South Main Street Photo 50: Setting, SW corner of Perkins and South Main streets

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
41 Photo 51: Setting, looking west on Perkins Street
Photo 52: Setting, NW corner of Perkins and South Main streets

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
42 Photo 53: Setting, west side of Main Street, looking NW from project area Photo 54: Setting, neighbor to north (NE corner of Perkins and Main streets)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
43 Photo 55: Setting, looking east on Perkins Street (north side) Photo 56: Setting, looking east on Perkins Street (south side)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
44 Photo 57: Setting, parking lot and neighbor to the east

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
45 Appendix B: Ukiah “Historic Resources Inventory” survey forms (1985, revised 1999)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
46

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
47

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
48 1
C

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
49 Appendix C: DPR523 Form A, Primary Form

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
50 DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # PR-23-005127 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # 5482
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3S
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier (APN): 002-231-01-00
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Mendocino and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Ukiah Date 2018 T 15N; R 12W; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address: 101 South Main Street City Ukiah Zip 95482-4919 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S, 482165.27 mE/ 4333451.62 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions, elevation, decimal degrees, etc.,) APN 002-231-01-00 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 (1-3 story commercial) *P4. Resources Present:

Building Structure
Object Site District
Element of District Other (Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) 1/7/20, West
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: 1921 (Ukiah Republican Press) Historic
Prehistoric
Both
*P7. Owner and Address:

Todd & Noel Schapmire, 390 W
Standley St., Ukiah, CA 95482
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Alice P. Duffee
APD Preservation LLC
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 2020
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report
and other sources, or enter "none.") “Historic Resource Evaluation”, Duffee (1/2020), 1999 Update *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

The 1-story, gable-roofed, wood-framed commercial building has a roughly rectangular footprint, with the NW corner clipped to accommodate the primary entrance. It is clad in corrugated metal and capped with corrugated metal roofing. The west and north elevations are faced in pressed tin to simulate rusticated, coursed, ashlar stone. The west elevation, fronting South Main street, is dominated by a false front that extends above the gable end of the roof and is capped with a pronounced boxed cornice. The street-facing side of the false front is faced with pressed tin; the rear is faced with corrugated metal. A corrugated metal awning extends the length of the west elevation and wraps around the northwest corner to shelter the primary entrance. A scalloped detail obscures the edge of the awning and adds visual interest. This elevation has 3 windows. The northernmost window is a fixed sash, single-paned window topped by a 6-paned transom window. The frame is simple board surround with a slightly projecting sill. The middle and south windows have fixed sashes set in aluminum frames.

Glass, jalousie transom top the windows. The frames have no projecting sills. The entrance is on the NW corner and consists of a pair of half-glass French doors with raised panels beneath arched glass panes. The door has a glass, jalousie transom and simple board frame. (CONTINUED) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
51 Appendix D: DPR523 Form B, Building/Object/Structure Form

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
52 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # PR-23-005127 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# 5482

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 101 South Main Street, Ukiah *NRHP Status Code 3CS

B1. Historic Name: 101 South Main Street
B2. Common Name: 101 South Main Street
B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Utilitarian
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1917-1921 *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: UNK b. Builder: UNK
*B10. Significance: Theme Commercial Architecture Area Ukiah, Mendocino County Period of Significance 1921 Property Type Commercial
Applicable Criteria Associated Event Associated Person Architecture Potential to Yield Information *B12. References:
“Historic Resource Evaluation,” Duffee (1/2020)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Alice P. Duffee, APD Preservation
*Date of Evaluation: January 2020
None
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The parcel was the site of early commercial development in Ukiah, dating to 1857 when Absalom Tidwell Perkins built a livery on this corner of the country crossroads. The original building was replaced with a second livery/hay barn in 1890. Ukiah’s June 1917 fire destroyed the 2nd building, and a 3rd structure was built on the site by at least 1921. From 1921-1963 the building served as a feed store. The building was converted to retail space in 1963. Modifications made at that time included infilling 2 open bays with windows, replacing the front doors, replacing and reconfiguring the awning, and adding an additional window. The false front that most defines the building was modified in 1938, but retains its basic early 20th century feeling. The building has remained in retail use almost continuously since 1963.The building is significant for its association with the post-fire redevelopment of Ukiah. It stands as the only remaining building to tell the story of how this block functioned as a service hub for agricultural commerce in the region. The building retains enough physical integrity to convey its early 20th century commercial origins.
. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6 (1-3 story commercial) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
53 Appendix E: DPR523 Form L, Continuation Forms

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
54 State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary # PR-23-005127 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# 5482
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Alice P. Duffee *Date: January 2020 nContinuation n Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

*P3a. Description (CONTINUED):

The north elevation has 3 original windows at irregular intervals and an infilled bay on the eastern corner. The original windows have multi-lite, wood transoms. The western-most window is identical to the flanking window on the west elevation. To its east lies a set of 3 multi-paned windows framed as a single unit. Another single-paned, wood frame window is roughly centered on the elevation. The bay at the eastern corner has been infilled with corrugated metal and a small, single pane, wood framed window. The building’s concrete foundation is visible on this elevation.

The east elevation has no openings and is covered with a mural of ionic columns that was painted in 7/1982 by Neil Phillip Anderson and Rita Lowitt, according to the signature at the bottom right of the artwork. The rear of the building (the south elevation) has a variety of mechanical equipment and a single pedestrian door at the eastern corner. A simple wood porch with 4 wood steps accesses the paneled rear door.

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
55 State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary # PR-23-005127 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# 5482
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Alice P. Duffee *Date: January 2020 nContinuation n Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

PHOTOGRAPHS

West Elevation (South Main Street) South Elevation
East Elevation (Mural 7/1982) North Elevation (Perkins Street) West Elevation, Pressed Tin Detail Northwest corner, False Front Detail

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
56 Appendix E: DPR523 Form J, Location Map

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation – UPDATED Jan 2022
57 State of California ¾ The Resources Agency Primary # PR-23-005127 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# 5482
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

7.5 USGS Topographic Map, Ukiah Quad, 2018
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information

CITY OF UKIAH

DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW

COMMITTEE MEETING

MINUTES
December 28, 2021

1. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Tim Eriksen called the Demolition Permit Review Committee meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. via Zoom teleconference.

Acting Chair Eriksen presiding.

2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Matt Keizer, Building Official, Community Development Department – Building Divison, Alyssa Ballard, Archivist & Historian, Historical Society of Mendocino County, and Acting Chair Tim Eriksen, City Engineer
Members Absent: Chair Craig Schlatter, Director, Community Development Department
Staff Present: Michelle Irace, Planning Manager; Mireya Turner, Planning Manager; Jesse Davis, Planning Manager; Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; Ian Broeske, Fire Marshal
Others present: Todd Schapmire, Pinky Kushner, Edith Lucas, Tom Liden, Patience Forest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 28, 2017
Motion/Second Keizer/Eriksen to approve the minutes of November 28, 2017, as submitted. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Member Eriksen,Keizer and Ballard. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Chair Schlatter.

4. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.

5. APPEAL PROCESS
There is no formal process of decisions made by the Committee, as all decisions are advisory to the City Council.

6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Request for Review and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Application for Demolition of Two Structures Over the Age of 50 Years Old Located at 101 and 105 South Main Street (APN 002-231-01).

Planning Manager Michelle Irace presented the Project.

PUBLIC INPUT OPENED: 3:20 p.m.

Speakers: Edith Lucas, Pinky Kushner, Todd Schapmire, Tom Liden PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED: 3:40 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 3

1) Motion/Second: Keizer/Eriksen to recommend City Council approval of the demolition permit to demolish the building located at 101 S. Main St., based on the criteria listed in UCC Section 3016.

Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Eriksen and Keizer.

NOES: Member Ballard ABSENT: Chair Schlatter. ABSTAIN: None. 2) Motion/Second: to recommend City Council approval of the demolition permit to demolish the building located at 105 S. Main St., based on the criteria listed in UCC Section 3016.

Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Eriksen, Keizer, and Ballard. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chair Schlatter. ABSTAIN: None.

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m.

Findings to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Allow Issuance of a Demolition Permit for Two Structures Over the Age of 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
File No. 21-6155 & 21-6623
1 ATTACHMENT 4

FINDINGS TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR TWO STRUCTURES OVER THE AGE OF 50 YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 101 AND 105 SOUTH MAIN STREET (APN 002-231-01) FILE NO. 21-6155 & 21-6623

1. The City of Ukiah, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Project (SCH No. 2022030389) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. The Lead Agency (City) consulted with all applicable responsible agencies and trustee agencies.

3. The Draft ISMND was circulated for public review from March 14, 2022 through April 15, 2022.

No public comments on the ISMND were received during the public review period.

4. The ISMND analyzed areas of potential impacts and based on the conclusions reached within it, the Project would not significantly impact any environmental resources for the following reasons:
a. Temporary ground disturbing activities associated with demolition would have an impact on Air Quality and Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources. However, mitigation measures identified within the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (Section VIII of the ISMND) would adequately reduce all impacts to less than significant.
b. The Project would result in a less than significant impact to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Hazards Materials, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Noise and Public Services. c. The Project would have no impact on Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Population and Housing.

5. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah (including the ISMND and any comments received) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment.

6. Based upon the analysis, findings, and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the Project will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable.

7. The Notice of Availability for the public review period, and the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073:

Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the Project parcel, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on March 14, 2022; provided to interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on March 14, 2022; posted on the City’s CEQA webpage on March 15, 2022 and March 7, 2022; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 16, 2022; posted on the

Findings to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Allow Issuance of a Demolition Permit for Two Structures Over the Age of 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
File No. 21-6155 & 21-6623
2 Project site on March 16, 2022; and posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearings.

8. The ISMND and record of proceedings of the decision on the Project are available for public review at the City of Ukiah Community Development Department, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA.

9. On December 28, 2021, the City’s Demolition Review Committee (DRC) held a public meeting and reviewed the Demolition Permit, in accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 3016(e).

The DRC meeting was properly noticed in accordance with 3016(d). The DRC determined that the two buildigns do not meet the criteria outlined in UCC 3016(e), and as such, recommended that City Council authorize issuance of the Demolition Permit to demolish the two structures.

10. On May 4, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing in accordance with UCC 3016(g) to receive public comment and consider the DRC’s reccomendation, as well as approval of the ISMND for the Project.

11. The City Council determined that the two buildings do not meet the criteria outlined in Section UCC 3016(e), and as such, authorized issuance of the Demolition Permit and adopted the ISMND and via Resolution Number 22-XXXX; this decision reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

Findings to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Allow Issuance of a Demolition Permit for Two Structures Over the Age of 50 Years Old 101 and 105 South Main Street
File No. 21-6155 & 21-6623
3

1 ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING THE MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR DEMOLITION OF TWO STRUCTURES OVER 50 YEARS OLD LOCATED AT 101 AND 105 SOUTH MAIN STREET
WHEREAS:

1. The City of Ukiah, as the Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Project (SCH No. 2022030389) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. The Notice of Availability for the public review period, and the Notice of Intent to adopt the ISMND and conduct a public hearing was provided in the following manner, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073: Provided to property owners within 300 feet of the Project parcel, as well as agencies and departments with jurisdiction or interest over the project on March 14, 2022; provided to interested parties who submitted written comments on the Draft ISMND during the public review period on March 14, 2022; posted on the City’s CEQA webpage on March 15, 2022 and March 7, 2022; published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on March 16, 2022; posted on the Project site on March 16, 2022; and posted at the Civic Center (glass case) 72 hours prior to the public hearings.; and

3. The Draft ISMND determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project should be prepared; and

4. Based on the findings and conclusions contained in the ISMND, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly; and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City of Ukiah (including the ISMND and any comments received) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment; and

5. The ISMND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental effects of the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which consists of the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the findings in support hereof, which have been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, which includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 7, is set forth in Exhibit 1, and the findings in support hereof are set forth in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.

2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jim. O. Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kristine Lawler, City Clerk

1 April 26, 2022
Councilmembers,
My name is Alyssa Ballard and I’m a professional historian with nine years experience in Mendocino County historical institutions and a lifelong resident of Ukiah. I am writing as a member of the City of Ukiah’s Demolition Permit Review Committee (DPRC), and as a concerned citizen, so I will divide my letter into two portions so as to not intermix my roles.

As a member of the DPRC:

On December 28, 2021, the DRPC met to review a demolition permit for 101 and 105 S. Main Street in Ukiah. I sit on this committee with Tim Eriksen, Craig Schlatter, Matthew Keizer, and the final seat is vacant. For 105 S. Main Street, the votes were three out of three in attendance to demolish. For 101 S. Main Street, the votes were two for demolition and one vote against demolition. My reason for writing is that I would like to explain my vote against the demolition of 101. S. Main Street in Ukiah.

The duty of the DPRC is to research the historical, cultural, and architectural significance of the subject structure; evaluate the feasibility of rehabilitating or relocating the structure if it is deemed historical; in the event that the structure is found to have historic or architectural significance, determine if the salvaging of historic materials is feasible. The committee then offers a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether any of the criteria listed in the Ukiah City Code Section 3016(E) apply to the subject structure, and whether or not the Demolition Permit should be issued, issued with conditions, or denied.

Per Ukiah City Code Section 3016(e):

In reviewing proposed permits, and formulating recommendations to the city council, the demolition review committee shall consider any information provided during the meeting, and shall use the following criteria. The structure:

1. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or

2. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, or architectural history; or

3. Is strongly identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.

Per UCC Section 3016(f), if the Demolition Review Committee finds that any of the criteria listed in subsection (e) apply to the building proposed for demolition, it shall recommend denial of the permit to the City Council.

ATTACHMENT 6

2 When discussing the historic importance of a building, in this case, it is the structure’s historic importance to Ukiah that is in question, and not the structure’s historic importance on the state or national level.

I voted “no” because I believe #1 and #2 under UCC Section 3016(e) apply to 101. S. Main Street for the following reasons:

1. The State of California’s Historic Resource Evaluation (1999 Update) states “This pressed metal-clad building is an excellent example of its type and the only one left in Ukiah.” This is not a factor that can change with time. Fulfilling #1 of UCC Section 3016(e)

2. State of California’s Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) identifies the building status code as “5S2”, meaning that the local government has identified it as individually eligible for local listing.

3. A Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Alice P. Duffee*, a Historic Preservation Planner for APD Preservation LLC was ordered in January 2020 by a prospective buyer of 101 S. Main Street. The report stated:
a. “it is my professional opinion that the building qualifies as an historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)” 1 b. “It stands as the only remaining building to tell the story of how this block functioned as a service hub for agricultural commerce in the region.” Fulfilling #1 and #2 of UCC Section 3016(e)
c. “…the building does appear to be significant for its association with post-fire redevelopment in Ukiah.” Referring to Ukiah’s devastating fire of 1917. Fulfilling #2 of UCC Section 3016(e)
*Duffee has an MS in Historic Preservation, has a BA in Architectural History, is a member of the California Historical Consultants, and has 25+ years of experience.

I reviewed all the research in the Historic Resource Evaluation, the material produced by the state, and did my own independent research, and came to the conclusion that 101 S. Main Street is historically significant to Ukiah and agree with all the points made above. I feel this 1 Duffee issued an update in November 2021 in the form of a letter (and later a revised HRE that was not provided until the CEQA was released in March 2021), as the State of California updated its guidelines. Duffee stated that it was her professional opinion that the building still fulfilled criterion A (now 1) meaning it is significant to the history of Ukiah’s early commercial development but it no longer fulfilled criterion C (now 3) as listed on the State of California’s Historic Resource Evaluation (1999 Update). The criteria states, the building “embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values,” which is the standard of significance for architectural merit. This only means the state no longer views it as officially eligible for historic status on the state or national level. It does not change the assertion that it is the only commercial building of its type left in Ukiah and historically important locally. Vernacular commercial buildings are rarely considered a “work of a master” or as possessing high artistic values”.

3 should exclude 101 S. Main Street from demolition based on the criteria set by Ukiah City Code 3016(e) and that is why I voted “no”.

Through the City of Ukiah’s current demolition process it is our duty to first determine whether the building is historic (does it fulfill #1, #2, #3, of UCC 3016 e). Only after that determination is made should current condition, use, or any other issues/topics pertaining to the building be discussed. They are not factors in the determination of the building’s historic status in Ukiah.

As a professional historian and a concerned member of the public:

Historic buildings are an important part of what gives a city or town its character. They are the physical representations of a town’s cultural history. They help give people a sense of place and connection to the past. Historic buildings add character to an area and give the area more prominence compared to the homogenized landscapes that dominate larger cities and suburbs.

A major reason we celebrate and love downtown Ukiah is because of its unique historic buildings. That uniqueness is also what attracts investment and tourism.

Most of our loved historic buildings in Ukiah’s downtown would not qualify for official state or national historic registers and are listed in the State of California’s Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) classification system (updated March 2020) as “5S2” (local government has identified it as individually eligible for local listing) which is the same listing as 101 S. Main Street. Some examples of Ukiah buildings that are listed as “5S2” are the Marks Building (102 S.

State Street), the White Building (111 N. State), the Rudee Building (117 N. State), the Eversole Building (304 N. State), the Dowling Building (301 N. State), the Gillespie Building (238 N. State) and countless more. If we do not protect buildings coded as “5S2”, Ukiah’s entire historic downtown, sans a couple of buildings, could be lost.

It should also be noted that everything that has been listed for 101 S. Main as potential hurdles (cost-prohibitive to bring up to code, condition, etc.) can be said for almost all of our historic buildings downtown. Many of the issues are not unique to this building; rather they are quite common issues one will run into while owning a historic structure. In my opinion they do not directly point to demolition as the only possible solution. Additionally, 101 S. Main Street is one of three historic commercial structures left of the east side of Main Street.

Finally, per proposed mitigation measures in the CEQA, if we deem a building worthy enough of a plaque to commemorate its existence, why not try to preserve the building while we still have it?
I ask that you please consider the information I have laid out above when the matter comes before the City Council. Thank you for taking the time to read my statements.

Alyssa Ballard
M. A. United States History
Demolition Permit Review Committee, City of Ukiah

4 Addendum:

I have attached to this letter a portion of the original Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) that was prepared for prospective buyer of 101 S. Main Street, Douglass Hilberman, AXIA Architects, Santa Rosa, in January 2020. This evaluation was prepared by Alice Duffee who made a site visit in January 2020 as part of her research. A revised version of the evaluation was released with the CEQA and Notice of Public Hearing in March 2022 (after the Demolition Review Committee had already met).

This version states on the cover page “Revised January 2022 for Todd Schapmire”. I noticed that the revised Project Overview & Executive Summary (page 5 in both versions) left out some important conclusions made by Duffee in the original. These were statements regarding factors that have not changed since the original was published and I’m unsure why they were left out of the revised version. I do not know if you will receive the original HRE so I have attached a few pages with highlighted portions directing you to these statements and items I have referred to in my letter.

The word “dilapidated” was also not used anywhere in the original HRE but is included in the revised version. I do not believe there have been any significant changes to the condition of the building in two years.

Prepared for:

Historic Resource Evaluation
101 South Main Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Mendocino County, California
(APN 002-231-01-00)
Douglas Hilberman, AIA, LEED AP
AXIA Architects
250 D Street, Suite 21 O
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 542-4652
fFE]l Prepared by:

Alice P. Duffee, Historic Preservation Planner
APO Preservation LLC
January 2020

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation
Project Overview &Executive Summary
Prospective buyers of the property at 101 South Main Street in Ukiah, California, are assessing the historic character of the building as part of the decision making process. They hired Alice P. Duffee, an architectural historian and preservation planner with APO Preservation LLC, to evaluate the historic character of the property and identify what features, if any, render the property historically significant. This report is the result of that evaluation.

The parcel was the site of early commercial development in Ukiah, dating to 1857 when Absalom Tidwell Perkins built a livery on this corner of the country crossroads. That original building was replaced by a second livery/hay barn in 1890. Ukiah's June 1917 fire destroyed that second building, and a third structure was built on the site y bat least by 1921. From 1921 to 1963 the building served as a feed store under four different businesses. With the modernization of Ukiah, the building was converted to retail space in 1963.

Modifications made to that building at that time included infilling two open bays with windows, replacing the front doors, replacing and reconfiguring the awning, and installing an additional window. The false front that most defines the building was modified in 1938, but retains its basic early twentieth century appearance.

The building has remained in retail use almost continuously since 1963.

The building at 101 South Main Street dates from 1921, is included in Ukiah's 1985 "Historic Resources Survey'' (updated in 1999) and is included in the State of California's inventory of historic resources with a status code of 3S, meaning that it appears to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Intensive evaluation and research of the property confirms that the information in the earlier reconnaissance level surveys is correct and that the building does appear to be significant for its association with the postfire redevelopment of Ukiah (criterion 1 ). It stands as the only remaining building to tell the story of how this block functioned as a service hub for agricultural commerce in the region. Its period of significance is 1921 (its inferred construction date), and it retains enough physical integrity to convey the early twentieth century commercial origins that render it historic.

Based on extensive research of the development of this parcel, it is my professional opinion that the bulldlng gyaHfles as an historic resouree under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The character defining features of this historic building are as follows:
• False front with pronounced box cornice on west elevation • One-story
• Rectangular footprint with clipped corner at northwest corner • Entrance on the clipped northwest corner
• Gable roof
• Pressed tin siding on west and north elevations, corrugated metal siding on east and south • Irregular window placement
Methodology
On January 7, 2020, Alice P. Duffee undertook a field survey of the property to conduct a visual review and assessment of the building. Records searches were conducted at the following repositories, as well as a variety of online research websites:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Iii
Mendocino County Recorder's office
Mendocino County Historical Society
City of Ukiah Building Department
Northwest Information Center (NWIC)
San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) online research databases California Digital Newspaper Collection
Online Archive of California and a variety of online research websites 5

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation
Statt of C•lilornia - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO REC11EATION Ser. No. ---------- HABS __ HAER __ NR _s_ SHL -- Loe __ UTM: A 10/ 482280 B 4333240 HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY c o _______ _

IDENTIFICATION

1. Common ntme: Main Street \line and Cheese

2. Historic name: W • H. Cox Company

3. Street or rural address: __ .-l.-0.-l""""S.-o ..... _M;.;.;;;.a""in""-S;;..t;;..r;;..e;;..e;;..t;;.._ ____________________ _ Clt'(._..;U~k.;.:i;.;;;a.;.;.h __________ Zip 95482 County __ H_e_n_d_o_c_i_n_o _______ _

4. Parcel number: _o;;..0;;..2;.,--2~3=-l.,.-_O;;..l;;._ ____________________________ _

6. Present Owner: ~J:.::i;.;;n:.cig""""'Q.:::u::::an=---------------Addren: 247 E, Perkins Citv_....;:Uk=i:.::B;.;;hc._ ________ Zip 95482 Owntrshlp Is: Publlc _____ Private .-..x ____ _

8. Present Use: __:C::.:otm1=:::e:.:r..::c:.:i:,::a:.:l::.... ______ _.___:Origin1I use: --'C""o;.;;111111=.;;e;.;r;.;c;.;;i;.;a;.;l;;.._ __________ _

DESCRIPTION

71. ArchittClural style: Vernacular Collllllercial
7b. Briefly describe the present physical dw:ription of the site or structure and describe anv major alterations from iu otlgln1I condition:

The small one story coml!!ercial building is rectangular in form, with an angular corner. The main body of the building has a gabled form roof, behind the tall parapeted facade wall of the shop front. A molded tin cornice projects from the top of the wall, and a canopy extends over the ground floor shop windows and angled entry. The north elevation contains a large window and two smaller grouped ones all with multi-paned upper portions. The frame building is sheathed with pressed metal panels, patterned to rese~ble courses of rusticat ed stone. Signs have been added to the facade and the corrugated metal sheathing rear of the store has been painted with stylized Greek columns.

Alterations include some modifications to openings on sides and rear of building, minor additions to the south elevation, and some interior remodeling. A tromp l'oeil painting of large clas9ical columns was painted across the rear of the building around 1981-82.

8. Construction date:

Estimated- Factual _lglJ_

9. Arch11ec1 ..:U:.:n.:..:k;:n.:::o:..:wn:..>!.. ____ _

10. Builder Unknown

11. ApproK. property size Un feet I
Fronta9e 125 Depth 151 or epprox. acreage _____ _

12. Dale(sl of enclowd photographhl
Dec,' 84 ,Moy' 85
44

101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation

13. Condltion : Exoollent _Good __ Fair ..x.._ Deteriorated __ No longer fn t)(istence

14. Alterations: -.lfodiffcaHon of npenfocs & rear, add. to eo, ext. re111, .painting

15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land __ Scattered buildings __ Densely built·up ...L,.

Residential _lndustrfal .i_ Commercial -A..__ Other:

16. Threats to site: None known--X.Priv11e development __ Zoning _ Vandalism _ Public Works project_ Other:

17. b the structure: On iu original site? ___x__ Moved?_ Unknown? _ __ _

18. Related tures ----------- ---------------------- SIGNIFICANCE

19. Briefly state historical trtd/or architectural importance !include dates, events, and personi associated with the site.) In 1878 Robt, McKinley purchased the SE corner of Perkins and Hain from A.T.

Perkins, McKinley lived in a house on the site and shared the lot with a feed stables he owned. The McKinley family kept a part interest in the bueiness until 1885. In 1889 the old stablee were torn down and new blacksmith - wagon shop structure was built by the Ellis family who then owned the property, In 1917 the big downtown fire destroyed all the buildinge on the lot. The W,M, Cox Company bought the property from the Ellis' in Oct. 1920. The Cox family had owned generol merchantile and grocery etores in Ukiah for many years. A deed transfer from the Cox Co. to widow in March 1922 implies that the building was on site,
In 1925 Eugenia Cox, widow of W.M~ leased the building to W.R. Hildreth and F,M, Wilson (see 216 w. Henry) for 72 moths at $100 a month with permission to let them place a large pair of scales on the premises, For 111any years this building was used to buy and sell produce, hay and clean grain.

The structure is representative of a type of co111111ercial structure co11111on to its era.

It is a rather rare survivor of the type in Ukiah, and is located prominently. Its surf acing lllaterials and form create a rather strong image of past lifestyles,

20. Main theme of the historic resource: {If more thin one is checked, number in order of impon1nce.I
Architecture l Aru & Leisure -------
Economic/Industrial ..-1Exploration/Settlement __ _
Government Military ---------
Religion Social/Education ------

21. Sources (Lis( books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and their dates).

Western Title, Dispatch Democrat
Mendocino Co. Records
Sanborn Maps, 1888,1898 nnd 1929

22. O~te form prepared November 22, 1985
Bvlnamel ~oghos13n/Vol Col!!m1rtee
Organimion Hist Eny CWJs, ICHy of !Jki-1b
Address: ?OJ S Schon! Sc.

C1tv - Ukiah Z1p95482
Phone: (707) 462- 2971
Locat!onal sketch map fdr1w and label site and
surroundrng streets, roads, ind prominent l1ndm11k1):

NORTH
=====-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~45 Ill

State ot CelHomla ·The Resource. Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
City of Ukiah Architectural Survey
Re1aurce Name:

P2. Property Addreae: 101 Main Street, S.

Ukiah, CA 95482
P3. Description:
101 S. Main Street, Ukiah, Mendocino County.

Historic Resource Evaluation
P-23-005127
HRll 5482
NRHP Statue Cod• 38
B Update D Continuation
APN: 002-231-01·00
P4. Reeourcee Present: II Building D District C Element of District P8. Date Conetructed: c. 1921
P7, Owner and Addreee: Jing & Phillip Quan
247 E. Perkins Street
815. Architectural Style: Vemacular commercial

88. Conetructlon Hletory: (Changes or alterations since 1985) l ·.\o_ ,r'-
J! ~(tfj\1--
~II- Applicable Crlter~' C
810. Significance: Thia preaaed metal-clad building la an excellent example of lt8 type and the only ona laU In Ukiah. \·u J ' r,._. •"'-',. i..· ~ ~\
Site Photo
P8. Recorded by:

Pl. Date Recorded:

II
. ~ ~ (}N'- • " ~ , L >J'/ {·. ,., (
1'? LA- M .\I . c...-\ u " J(l le, <L ,_.(. ~J;. (}/.\ t /' v )~J..I ?7
Bonnie W. Snyder, P.S. Preservation Services, P.O. Box 191275, Sacramento CA 95819 July 1, 1999
b
46

From: Kristine Lawler
To: Doug Crane; Jim Brown; Juan Orozco; Josefina Duenas; Mari Rodin Cc: Sage Sangiacomo; Shannon Riley; David Rapport; Craig Schlatter; Jesse Davis; Michelle Irace; Mireya Turner Subject: Correspondence Received - Edith Lucas
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:15:04 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please find below correspondence received from Edith Lucas. ~Kristine
Brown Act Notice: Do not “reply to all” from this email. Please contact me directly for clarification and/or questions.

Kristine Lawler, CMC/City Clerk
Email:[email protected]
300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482
P:(707) 463-6217 F:(707) 463-6204
From: Dragons Lair <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Kristine Lawler <[email protected]>
Subject: to the council
Dear City Council Member
My name is Edith Lucas, owner of The Dragon’s Lair at 101 S Main St here in Ukiah.

I understand that you will be reviewing the request for permission to demolish the building at our location sometime soon; and that, per the hearing conducted by the planning department on Dec 28, the committee reviewing the application was split two to one in favor of granting that permission.

With things not looking so good for us, I have been reviewing my options as to where to put my business if you all decide in favor of demolishing.

As I’ve been looking around, I’ve noticed a lot of vacant spaces, many in ill repair, and it just struck me like never before… why tear something down that is occupied and working? For a landmark, it is extremely well known and with the addition of my business, would seem to embody the city motto of Far Out Nearby.

It brings people in to Ukiah from near to very far away on a regular basis to enjoy that experience.

But even if it wasn’t my business in that building, I believe it is still interesting enough to be a really unique part of what makes our city special.

I know you are tasked with evaluating the building impartially and on certain criteria, but it appears that even that evaluation is not able to be done completely impartially. So, even though I can understand the position of my landlord – a local guy who I trust has the best interest of the place - downtown Ukiah, into which he has invested so much time and money – at heart, I still think it is not a slam dunk nor should it be.

Can it be proven that the end result will not be just another abandoned building, empty lot or modern architectural misfit?

I wish that local government could facilitate the collaboration of interested parties in taking care of old buildings such as the one at 101 S Main. The Mendocino County Historical Society thinks of it as worth preserving.

I’m not in a position to do it alone, but I would certainly be willing to be a part of a group who wanted to buy it and do what it takes to maintain it.

Over the years, my responsibilities to my employees, my customers and things like paying sales taxes, utility bills and all the other operational expenses have always taken priority over building maintenance for me, especially since neither my current nor my past landlord were interested in giving me a lease.

I recently had some remedial wiring done on the inside of 101 S Main St and I passed the fire marshal’s inspection, it wasn’t that hard.

I can imagine that, with the will to do it, maintenance solutions can be found for the old building, it is definitely not too far gone in my opinion.

My current landlord has offered me the option of one of his buildings at 121 N State St.

It is still an unfinished shell inside and is also very old with what appears to be a condemned upstairs. It has an earthquake warning for unreinforced brick and the entryway next door to the south on State St appeared to be occupied by a homeless person when I went by yesterday. With minimal parking and not much exposure to the public, you can imagine that it is not my first choice. In fact, on the issues of earthquake safety and general personal safety, our current location feels a whole lot safer to me.

Either way, I am a believer in what’s best for everyone, so I’m ready to go with the decision that you will be handing down.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Sincerely,
Edith Lucas

Dear City Council Member,
Edith Lucas here again with a P.S.

Well now I really am in a quandary.

I have shared my opinion and point of view with all of you.

And I have heard from my landlord that it would be better for me in the long run if you approve his application to demolish because I would probably get to stay there longer since he doesn’t even have any plans or a time frame in place for that action and it would seem that it could be a long time before a prospective developer is ready to buy and develop.

He has said that he wouldn’t even sell to someone who’s plans he didn’t like. And I’m sure the city has many guidelines that have to be followed when constructing anything so close to the heart of our precious downtown.

I am many things but I do not consider myself to be a visionary (like my landlord) when it comes to creating a city.

I want to trust that the best really will take place for everyone involved and I especially do not want to be in an adversarial relationship with my landlord! I don’t envy your position in having to make this decision.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
Edith Lucas

W Real Estate, DRE License 01795950
500 Bicentennial Way, Suite 310, Santa Rosa, California 95403 Phone: (707) 591-0570 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 114, Windsor, California 95492 Phone: (707) 636-3800 101 North State Street, Ukiah, California 95482 Phone: (707) 380-0003 December 10, 2021
Michelle Irace
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
RE: Broker Opinion of Value for 101 South Main Street
Dear Ms. Irace,
For the Historical Demolition Review Committee to assess whether a viable market exists for the subject building, an assessment of market value versus cost to repair the building must be made. As you know, I am the owner of the subject property and the applicant for the demolition permit, however I am also the top producing commercial real estate agent in Mendocino County. Given that I am the applicant, I feel it necessary to verify my credentials for making an assessment on value to you and the committee. Attached you will find real estate agent production for commercial and investment real estate closed transactions in Mendocino County since January 1, 2020 from BAREIS MLS that clearly show I am qualified to provide this assessment.

The subject property consists of two buildings that are approximately 3,200 square feet and 2,800 square feet for a total of approximately 6,000 square feet.

Attached is data on commercial sales in central Ukiah since January 1, 2019 which range in sales price per square foot from $37.50 to $213.89. Currently in the downtown area there are two properties on the market, 301 North Main Street has been on the market for 276 days for $161.29 per square foot and 214 East Perkins has been on the market for 637 days at $96.23.

Not included in the attached information is the off market sales of 102 South State Street for approximately $140 per square foot on April 30, 2021 and 295 North State for approximately $125 per square foot on June 1, 2021.

The attached data clearly shows that dilapidated buildings in Ukiah sell for $100/SF or less and that the high end of the market is about $200/SF. Since we are assuming bringing the building up to current codes and the subject property would be in excellent condition, we can round up and safely say that the absolute best case scenario for improved value of the subject property is $250/SF which is $1,500,000.

ATTACHMENT 7

2 | Page
I have consulted with two very reputable builders, Cupples & Sons Construction and Western Builders, regarding the cost to update the building which would require bringing it to current codes. Both came up with the same opinion completely independent of one another that it would cost $400 - $500 per square foot to make such improvements. Attached are letters from both companies with their opinions. Therefore it would cost approximately $2,400,000 - $3,000,000 to repair the building and after those repairs the building would be worth $1,500,000 at the absolute best case scenario. If you take into account the $420,000 that I paid for the property and do not even count any appreciation that has occurred, I would lose somewhere between $1,320,000 and $1,920,000. Unfortunately, based on current real estate values and the cost to repair the building, a viable market to repair the building simply does not exist.

Please feel free to call or email me anytime with questions.

Sincerely,
Todd Schapmire Jr.

DRE License 01414195
Disclaimer: Todd Schapmire and W Real Estate are not licensed appraisers and are not attempting to act as an appraiser. This letter should not be relied upon as actual value of the subject property, but merely an opinion of one real estate professional.

Ranking Report
Report By: Agent Sort By: Volume, Transactions Display Top: 25 Closed Counts IncBoth Listing and Buyer Agent & C Transactions as of 12/10/21 at 11:35am Page 1
Transactions
Rank MLS ID Name Listed Closed Total Volume Average %-Total 1 G328324 Todd Schapmire 8 3 11 $18,927,500 $1,720,682 9.65 2 G316080 John Lazaro 6 3 9 $9,754,000 $1,083,778 4.97
3 B314295 Cindy Kennedy 3 2 5 $7,889,000 $1,577,800 4.02 4 G316106 Gary Nix 3 3 6 $7,470,500 $1,245,083 3.81
5 D401253 Benjamin Kobetz 4 2 6 $6,119,780 $1,019,963 3.12 6 B999999 Non-member 999999 0 10 10 $5,878,000 $587,800 3.00 7 B320388 Todd Sheppard 1 1 2 $5,663,244 $2,831,622 2.89 8 SKLEMPAS Sabina Straley-Klempa 1 1 2 $5,650,000 $2,825,000 2.88 9 A337978 Kevin P McDonald 2 2 4 $5,393,000 $1,348,250 2.75 10 G316099 Lynn McNamara 4 3 7 $5,017,000 $716,714 2.56 11 G337052 Mitchell McNamara 1 4 5 $3,127,000 $625,400 1.59 12 G338639 Whitney A Vau 4 1 5 $3,102,000 $620,400 1.58 13 G324083 Tara Moratti 3 5 8 $3,070,500 $383,813 1.57
14 G320068 Gregory J Burke 3 1 4 $3,053,000 $763,250 1.56 15 G336900 Sarah Schoeneman 1 1 2 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 1.53 16 G329113 Lia Patterson 0 2 2 $2,995,000 $1,497,500 1.53 17 G339553 Marcia M Lazaro 3 1 4 $2,954,000 $738,500 1.51 18 NMLSAGNT Non-MLS Member 0 1 1 $2,825,000 $2,825,000 1.44 19 G317813 Jeniffer Sobbizadeh 5 2 7 $2,806,500 $400,929 1.43 20 G404920 Dara Collicott 3 4 7 $2,635,500 $376,500 1.34 21 EB154162 Chris Steele 1 0 1 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 1.30 22 G338860 Jami Sundstrom 1 0 1 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 1.30 23 G333806 Michelle Deering 4 0 4 $2,519,000 $629,750 1.28 24 G404556 Julie A Webster 1 0 1 $2,495,000 $2,495,000 1.27 25 G339108 Patrick J Reda 1 1 2 $2,098,155 $1,049,078 1.07 Other Agents * 73 65 138 $76,630,440 $555,293 39.06
Total Agents * 136 118 254 $196,173,119 $772,335 100.00 * An agent who is both the listing agent and selling agent is granted 200% credit.

Equal Opportunity Housing * All information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Information has not been verified, is not guaranteed, and is subject to change. Copyright © 2021 Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright 2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. (STATS5-5)
1 G328324 Todd Schapmire 8 3 11 $18,927,500 $1,720,682 9.65



 







!"
#$%&
'()&
*+,-./0&
1,+23

45.+0&
67--/5+
40/&
*+-//+
899-/00&

6.+:;
*+2+/;
<.=&
>.0+.5?
'7@A/-&
B(%C6B(%&
D-.E/
D/-
*FG+&
*F72-/
G,,+2?/&
67--/5+
D-.E/&
(-.?.523
D-.E/&
>,E2+.,5&
#*)&
*,39
D-.E/&
6,75+:&
H7.39.5?
G/2+7-/0&
)5E,@/
)5E379/0&
H70.5/00
1:=/&
<,5.5?&
4+.3.+./0&
1/525+
D2:0&
I2+/-&
'7@A/-
H7.39.5?0&
62=
$2+/&
12J/0
KJ=/50/&
4+.3.+:

KJ=/50/&
*+2+70
B2+/&
LMLL
N
L
L
N
OPOQR
S TUV

NWXLTLLL
NYZYM[\
]ZXL

NWXLTLLL
[WZ^[WZ
_`ababcde
fgVT
h
\X]i[]]
jLY
k
l


lmn
fOT ToO
Sp
f
8E+.q/
rssTR
S 
tO
kSpTO

kSpT
Vu
kSp
ln
Y
LMLLv
N
N
Lj^LX^[Y
LMLL
N
L
L
N
rO p
wnsTxnyn

tVO
 TR 

uTOPOQRy

NYTYXLTLLL
N\ZM[j
YY\XL

NYTYXLTLLL
[[^ZjW
_`aabz{be
fgVT
h
\X]i[Wi
[Y]
|
RgO



8E+.q/
h
kSpTrssT
sp
kSpT}O
kSpTR
S 
tO
kSpTO

kSpT

ln
 T


TUV
Y


~O
lT

w
l
R
S 
Y
LMLLv
N
N
YY^Yi^[Y
YXMZj
N
L
Y
NY\T[LL
fn
Y[


 uO
N[iXTLLL
NY]YMjW
[LYZ
NjLLTLLL
]W^]W
`adb`aca
fgVT
h
\X]i[]\
YYj





63,0/9
rssT
Vu
kSp
N[iXTLLL
ln

r TO

Y
Y
LMLLv
N
N
Lj^[\^Y\
Y[MZj
N
L
[
N[\TWLL
Y
O
R
fT
h
NjLLTLLL
NYL[MZj
[\[j
Nj\\T\LL
Y]Y^Y]Y
``baaez
fgVT
h
\X]i[Xj
WYjW[Y

r


U€€
63,0/9
UV
NjLLTLLL
ln

j
k

~O
n
R
S 
[
XMjLv
N
N
Y[^[Y^[L

‚ƒ„

†‡ˆ„ˆƒ
‰Š
‹‚†
ŒŽƒ‡ƒ
‘’“”•”•‘–
“‘“—•”’—‘•“‘
˜ƒ„ˆ™šƒ›
œšœƒšˆƒ‡
ž„Ÿ
ˆ
ƒ

‡ˆƒ›
Ÿ
ˆ¡ƒ
¢¢Žƒ£„¤ƒˆ
œšƒ‡ƒˆ¤
ˆ¡‡
šŽ¡™šƒ¥
¦¢šž„ˆ
¡„‡
ˆ
ƒƒ
§ƒš¢ƒ›–
‡
ˆ
¤™„š„ˆƒƒ›–
„›
‡
‡™ ¨ƒŽˆ
ˆ
Ž¡„¤ƒ¥
‰œŸš¤¡ˆ
©
ª‘ª’
‹Š‚†¦«–
¦Ž¥
Š

š¤¡ˆ‡

‚ƒ‡ƒš§ƒ›¥
‰œŸš¤¡ˆ
©
ª‘ª’
‚„œ„ˆˆ
‰šœš„ˆ¥
Š

š¤¡ˆ‡
šƒ‡ƒš§ƒ›¥
¬’ª£’‘£ª’
£
’’­®ªŠ¯°
¬±¥«¥
²„ˆƒˆ
³–”’‘–‘´•°
²šƒ‡ƒˆƒ›
Ÿ­
µ››
«Ž¡„œžšƒ
‰Š
‹‚†
ŒŽƒ‡ƒ
‘’´’´’”•–
“‘“—•”’—‘•“‘
*+2+70&



 







!"
#$%&
'()&
*+,-./0&
1,+23

45.+0&
67--/5+
40/&
*+-//+
899-/00&

6.+:;
*+2+/;
<.=&
>.0+.5?
'7@A/-&
B(%C6B(%&
D-.E/
D/-
*FG+&
*F72-/
G,,+2?/&
67--/5+
D-.E/&
(-.?.523
D-.E/&
>,E2+.,5&
#*)&
*,39
D-.E/&
6,75+:&
H7.39.5?
G/2+7-/0&
)5E,@/
)5E379/0&
H70.5/00
1:=/&
<,5.5?&
4+.3.+./0&
1/525+
D2:0&
I2+/-&
'7@A/-
H7.39.5?0&
62=
$2+/&
12J/0
KJ=/50/&
4+.3.+:

KJ=/50/&
*+2+70
B2+/&
LMLL
N
L
L
N

NOOPQLLL
NRSMOT
UVVU

NORSQSLL

TTVWTTV
XYZ[YYYX
\]^Q
_
SPU`VUS
TUP
a
^
^


63,0/9
bccQd
e 
fg
heiQg

heiQ
^j
heiQk^

NOOPQLLL
lm
k^
T
h

ng
m
d
e 
L
LMLLo
N
N

LPWVOWTS
LMLL
N
L
L
N
T
g
d
\QTV

T`


 jgQ
] 

ig

NORPQLLL
NORMPL
TLLLL

NUVUQLLL
O`WO`
XYZ[Y[p[
\]^Q
_
SPU`V
TVP
h




lqm
\gQ Qk^
63,0/9
bccQ
ci
heiQrg
heiQd
e 
fg
heiQg

heiQ
^j
heiQk

NORPQLLL
lm
T


s
lQ

ng
l
d
e 
L
LMLLo
N
N
LVWT`WTS
LMLL
N
L
L
N
gtgudv
NO`PQLLL
NVTOM`S
T`LL

NOSSQLLL
RRWRR
XXwXxpyZ
\]^Q
_
SPU`VPU
TSP

i
_v
63,0/9
bccQd
e 
fg
heiQg

heiQ
^j
hei
NO`PQLLL
lm
T
L
LMLLo
N
N

LVWLPWVT
LMLL
N
L
O
N
T
g
d
\Qz
Qaq

jQ


jQ{mgjQl
 
f
|
 mjQ
_

NULLQLLL

NTRUMVV
VVS}

NUOPQLLL
O}SWO}S
XXww~yXY
\]^Q
_
SPU`V
VRP
s
nee


lqm
\gQkzz
63,0/9
_
heiQ
ci
heiQrg
heiQhj^e^mQd
e 
fg
heiQg

heiQ

NULLQLLL
lm

|eW|
iQ|]gWmg
O
e 
_v e Q
_v e Qlg
ng
lQlg
s
lQh

ng

d
e 
T
PMLLo
N
N
LOWV}WVT
€
‚ƒ„

†‡ƒ‡‚
ˆ‰
Š

‹Œ‚Ž†‚
‘’“”“”•
’’–”“‘–”’
—‚ƒ‡˜™‚š
›™œ›‚™‡Œ‚†
ƒž
Žœ‡
Ÿ‚
„Œ†‡‚š
Ÿž
‡ ‚
œ¡¡Œ‚¢ƒ£‚Ž‡
›™‚†‚Ž‡ŒŽ£
‡ Œ†
Ÿ™œ ˜™‚¤
¥Ž¡œ™ƒ‡ŒœŽ
Ġ
Žœ‡
Ÿ‚‚Ž
¦‚™Œ¡Œ‚š•
Π
Žœ‡
£˜ƒ™ƒŽ‡‚‚š•
ƒŽš
Π
†˜Ÿ§‚‡
‡œ
 ƒŽ£‚¤
ˆœ›ž™Œ£ ‡
¨
©©‘
Š‰
¥ª•
¥Ž¤
‰„„
™Œ£ ‡†

‚†‚™¦‚š¤
ˆœ›ž™Œ£ ‡
¨
©©‘
ƒ›ƒ‡‡œŽŒ
ˆœ™›œ™ƒ‡ŒœŽ¤
‰„„
™Œ£ ‡†
™‚†‚™¦‚š¤
«‘©¢‘¢©‘
¢
‘‘¬­©‰®¯
«°¤ª¤
±ƒ‡‚Ž‡
²•“‘•³”¯
±™‚†‚Ž‡‚š
Ÿž¬
´œšš
ª ƒ›Œ™‚
ˆ‰
Š

‹Œ‚Ž†‚
‘³‘³‘“”•
’’–”“‘–”’
*+2+70&



 







!"
#$%&
'()&
*+,-./0&
1,+23

45.+0&
67--/5+
40/&
*+-//+
899-/00&

6.+:;
*+2+/;
<.=&
>.0+.5?
'7@A/-&
B(%C6B(%&
D-.E/
D/-
*FG+&
*F72-/
G,,+2?/&
67--/5+
D-.E/&
(-.?.523
D-.E/&
>,E2+.,5&
#*)&
*,39
D-.E/&
6,75+:&
H7.39.5?
G/2+7-/0&
)5E,@/
)5E379/0&
H70.5/00
1:=/&
<,5.5?&
4+.3.+./0&
1/525+
D2:0&
I2+/-&
'7@A/-
H7.39.5?0&
62=
$2+/&
12J/0
KJ=/50/&
4+.3.+:

KJ=/50/&
*+2+70
B2+/&
LMLL
N
L
L
N
OP

NQRLSLLL

NTUVMVU
WRWL

NVLLSLLL

WVXYWVX
Z[Z\]^_`
abPS
c
dVQXW
edL
f
g


OP
63,0/9

NQRLSLLL
hi
j
e
hk
lk
hSOP
j
m
n 
L
LMLLo
N
N

TLYLRYWT
LMLL
N
L
e
N
pk g
fiqSrs

tSuivi

wPk
 SxP

 kSyvt
c

z
 itSh
 
w
z


NVQLSLLL
NUdMLd
RXWX
NVdLSLLL
TXeYTXe
\[Z[]__]
abPS
c
dVQXWQd
WLUWTT




hsi
akSO{{S
63,0/9
pqqS|k
jngSm
n 
wk
jngSk

jngS
Pt
jng

NVQLSLLL
hi

OPSm{kk

v
T
u
cv n Sj

lk
iS

f
hS

lk
h
m
n 
T
LMLLo
N
N
LWYTdYTd
LMLL
N
L
TT
N



tSxP

 kS
c

NUVLSLLL
NTXdMRe
edVV

NXUVSLLL
TWYTW
\[}~_`
abPS
c
dVQXWVQ
VTQ

P


O{{Ski
63,0/9
pqqSk

jngS
Pt
jng

NUVLSLLL
hi

OPSm{kk

v
T
W
VMTLo
N
N
LUYTLYTd
TTMXQ
N
L
L

NRXSQLL
{
Srs

tS
c
NUdVSLLL

NTQVMVL
VQRQ

NXTLSLLL

RUWYRUW
\[Z~\\^
abPS
c
dVQXW
WdL
tnn


O{{
63,0/9
pqqS
qg
jngSm{kk
 sSm
n 
wk
jngSk

jngS

NUdVSLLL
hi
m{kk

v
T
m
n 
L
XMLLo
N
N

LTYTLYWL
€
‚ƒ„

†‡ƒ‡‚
ˆ‰
Š

‹Œ‚Ž†‚
‘’“”“”•
’’–”“‘–”’
—‚ƒ‡˜™‚š
›™œ›‚™‡Œ‚†
ƒž
Žœ‡
Ÿ‚
„Œ†‡‚š
Ÿž
‡ ‚
œ¡¡Œ‚¢ƒ£‚Ž‡
›™‚†‚Ž‡ŒŽ£
‡ Œ†
Ÿ™œ ˜™‚¤
¥Ž¡œ™ƒ‡ŒœŽ
Ġ
Žœ‡
Ÿ‚‚Ž
¦‚™Œ¡Œ‚š•
Π
Žœ‡
£˜ƒ™ƒŽ‡‚‚š•
ƒŽš
Π
†˜Ÿ§‚‡
‡œ
 ƒŽ£‚¤
ˆœ›ž™Œ£ ‡
¨
©©‘
Š‰
¥ª•
¥Ž¤
‰„„
™Œ£ ‡†

‚†‚™¦‚š¤
ˆœ›ž™Œ£ ‡
¨
©©‘
ƒ›ƒ‡‡œŽŒ
ˆœ™›œ™ƒ‡ŒœŽ¤
‰„„
™Œ£ ‡†
™‚†‚™¦‚š¤
«‘©¢‘¢©‘
¢
‘‘¬­©‰®¯
«°¤ª¤
±ƒ‡‚Ž‡
²•“‘•³”¯
±™‚†‚Ž‡‚š
Ÿž¬
´œšš
ª ƒ›Œ™‚
ˆ‰
Š

‹Œ‚Ž†‚
‘³‘³‘“”•
’’–”“‘–”’
*+2+70&



 







!"
#$%&
'()&
*+,-./0&
1,+23

45.+0&
67--/5+
40/&
*+-//+
899-/00&

6.+:;
*+2+/;
<.=&
>.0+.5?
'7@A/-&
B(%C6B(%&
D-.E/
D/-
*FG+&
*F72-/
G,,+2?/&
67--/5+
D-.E/&
(-.?.523
D-.E/&
>,E2+.,5&
#*)&
*,39
D-.E/&
6,75+:&
H7.39.5?
G/2+7-/0&
)5E,@/
)5E379/0&
H70.5/00
1:=/&
<,5.5?&
4+.3.+./0&
1/525+
D2:0&
I2+/-&
'7@A/-
H7.39.5?0&
62=
$2+/&
12J/0
KJ=/50/&
4+.3.+:

KJ=/50/&
*+2+70
B2+/&
LMLL
N
L
L
N

NOLLPLLL

NQLRMLS
RRTL

NTPQLLPLLL

QUVWQUV
XYZ[[Z\Z
]^_P
`
OaRSQ
RQL
b
c^d


63,0/9
effP
fg
higPjd
higPk Pc
i 
ld
higPd

higP

NOLLPLLL
km
n^gP
od_Pe
pdP
h
T
LMLLq
N
N
TQWQrWTO
LMLL
N
L
L
N
NTPLTQPaLL
NTTOMOr
SRRL

NTPTLLPLLL
QUrWQUr
XX[XXs[[
]^_P
`
OaRSQRQ
rUU
h




63,0/9
effP
fg
higPjd
higPctdd
 uPc
i 
ld
higPd
NTPLTQPaLL
km
 Pkm Pctdd
Q
L
LMLLq
N
N

LUWLQWQT
SMQr
NTLUPUrQ
L
Tr
NTOVPrVQ



pPvmdpPd
wdxcyP
^g p_
wdxP
^ 

gd
NTPVaLPLLL
NOLMLL
TaLLL
NTPaOOPLLL
TUaWTUa
XYzXY\XX
]^_P
`
OaRSQRR
VrU
h




{tt
63,0/9
effP
fg
higPjd
higPc
i 
ld
higPd

higP
_p
hig
NTPVaLPLLL
km

{_Pctdd

y
T
kd
|d
kPkd
o
k
c
i 
Q
rMULq

NTOPQLL
NVLPrTS

LSWTQWTO
LMLL
N
L
L
N
t
Pbu

pP


pP}_

 dPvmdpPk
p

 dPk
 
l
n
 mpP
`Pd
NOaLPLLL
NTSQMrO
aQLL
NOaLPLLL
VWV
XYZ[XzY~
]^_P
`
OaRSQRV
VOL
o

m g


kum
]dP{tt
*,39
(
%>*
effPc
i 
ld
higPd

higP
_p
higP{_
NOaLPLLL
km

ctdd

y
T
e
v
`y i P€
`y i Ph

|d
mPl _
c
i 
T
aMrLq
N
N

LQWTVWTO

‚ƒ„

†‡ˆ„ˆƒ
‰Š
‹‚†
ŒŽƒ‡ƒ
‘’“”•”•‘–
“‘“—•”’—‘•“‘
˜ƒ„ˆ™šƒ›
œšœƒšˆƒ‡
ž„Ÿ
ˆ
ƒ

‡ˆƒ›
Ÿ
ˆ¡ƒ
¢¢Žƒ£„¤ƒˆ
œšƒ‡ƒˆ¤
ˆ¡‡
šŽ¡™šƒ¥
¦¢šž„ˆ
¡„‡
ˆ
ƒƒ
§ƒš¢ƒ›–
‡
ˆ
¤™„š„ˆƒƒ›–
„›
‡
‡™ ¨ƒŽˆ
ˆ
Ž¡„¤ƒ¥
‰œŸš¤¡ˆ
©
ª‘ª’
‹Š‚†¦«–
¦Ž¥
Š

š¤¡ˆ‡

‚ƒ‡ƒš§ƒ›¥
‰œŸš¤¡ˆ
©
ª‘ª’
‚„œ„ˆˆ
‰šœš„ˆ¥
Š

š¤¡ˆ‡
šƒ‡ƒš§ƒ›¥
¬’ª£’‘£ª’
£
’’­®ªŠ¯°
¬±¥«¥
²„ˆƒˆ
³–”’‘–‘´•°
²šƒ‡ƒˆƒ›
Ÿ­
µ››
«Ž¡„œžšƒ
‰Š
‹‚†
ŒŽƒ‡ƒ
‘’´’´’”•–
“‘“—•”’—‘•“‘
*+2+70&

December 1, 2021
Todd Schapmire
W Real Estate
101 North State Street
Ukiah, California 95482
RE: 101 and 105 South Main Street, Ukiah, CA
Dear Mr. Schapmire,
We have reviewed the buildings at 101 and 105 South Main Street. 101 South Main is an approximately 3,200 square foot wood framed, metal/tin sided building in extremely poor condition. 105 South Main Street is an approximately 2,800 square foot wood framed, metal sided building in extremely poor condition. In order to bring these buildings up to code and safety standards a complete remodel of the buildings would be necessary, including but not limited to, electrical, plumbing, roof structures, roof surfaces, sub-floors, floorings, fire suppression systems, and reconfiguring both the buildings and sites to be ADA compliant.

In essence to update these buildings to current code, we would have to build a new building inside the existing shell. It could be done, however, the costs will be exorbitant and you will still end up with some functional obsolescence. To complete a formal bid, I would need to get compensated for my time which I estimate to be approximately $2,000 - $3,000 for this specific

project. However, I can tell you with absolute certainty you are looking at a minimum of $400 per square foot and probably more likely $500 per square foot. Based on 6,000 square feet, you are looking at a $2,400,000 to $3,000,000 project.

Please feel free to contact with any questions or if you would like to discuss further.

Sincerely,
Casey Cupples
Vice President
Casey Cupples

WESTERN BUILDERS

1400 N. Dutton Ave., #19
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 542-3213
(707) 542-6285(Fax)
CA 834013
December 3, 2021
Mr. Todd Schapmire
W Real Estate
[email protected]

RE: 101 S. Main St, Ukiah

Dear Todd:

We have completed an extensive review of the property and two buildings located at 101 S.

Main Street in Ukiah CA. The existing structures on the site are in poor condition and fail to meet current building codes and standards. Upgrading the existing structures to meet current code and market rate standards would require extensive repairs and enhancements. Costs for such upgrades can range in the $400-$500 per square foot to address the buildings and site combined. These values would not include soft costs such as architecture, engineering and permit fees, nor would they include any off-site improvements imposed by the City of Ukiah.

This assessment is based upon visits to the site and historical accountings of similar redevelopment projects.

Please let us know if you require further analysis at this time.

Sincerely,
Robert Cantu
Robert Cantu - President

Agenda Item No: 12.a.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 5/4/2022
ITEM NO: 2022-1612

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Consideration of Authorization of City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration, and Award of Bid for Spec. 21-06 Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2, Contingent on Grant Offer to Complete the Runway 15-33 Width Reduction from 150 Feet to 75 Feet; and Install New Lighting (Construction); and Approval of Corresponding Budget Amendment.

DEPARTMENT: Airport PREPARED BY: Greg Owen, Airport Manager, Mary Horger, Financial Services Manager
PRESENTER: Greg Owen, Airport Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Bid Results - Spec 21-06 - Runway 15.33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2 (2)

2. Royal Electric's Bid
Summary: Staff is requesting that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and award a bid for Specification No. 21-06 - Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2, contingent on Grant Offer to complete the Runway 15-33 width reduction from 150 feet to 75 feet; and install new LED MIRLS (Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System), Runway Threshold Lights (Remove and Install New), a New Runway 15 LED REIL (Runway End Identifier Lights), New Runway 33 LED REIL Installation, and a New LED PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator); and approve a corresponding budget amendment.

Background: At the December 15, 2021, Council meeting, Council approved Plans and Specifications to complete the Runway15-33 width reduction from 150 feet to 75 feet; and install new LED MIRLS (Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System), Runway Threshold Lights (Remove and Install New), a New Runway 15 LED REIL (Runway End Identifier Lights), New Runway 33 LED REIL Installation, and a New LED PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator).

Discussion: On March 10, 2022, bids were released for Specification 21-06 Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2, which consisted of sending Bid Notices to Builder’s Exchanges and licensed Class A Contractors on the City’s Qualified Bidder’s list, sending an advertisement for publishing in the Ukiah Daily Journal, and posting the bid documents on the City’s website. Bids were publicly opened on April 14, 2022, receiving one (1) bid. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the bid results. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is Royal Electric, with a bid amount of $2,222,222.00. Please refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of Royal Electric Bid.

Staff is requesting the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a grant agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and award of bid for Spec. 21-06 Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2, Contingent on Grant Offer Runway 15-33 width reduction from 150 feet to 75 feet; and install new LED MIRLS (Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System), Runway Threshold Lights (Remove and Install New), a New Runway 15 LED REIL (Runway End Identifier Lights), New Runway 33 LED REIL Installation, and a New LED PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator).

The Contingent FAA funding is 90% of the project cost, total project cost $2,509,484, Royal Electric $2,222,222, Project Administration and Inspection expense $287,262, Caltrans grant match of 5%, $112,927.

The balance of the funds, or $138,022, will be funded from the Airport Fund. Staff is requesting a

corresponding budget amendment for both the project costs, as well as the grant funding, and reflects a 10% contingency in the event of change orders.

The timing of this project is a concern that Staff has grappled with since the Airport is open every day yearround. However, due to construction requirements and FAA funding for this project, the runway may be closed during fire season, causing Cal Fire to relocate for several weeks. Cal Fire air tankers will be relocated to the next closest bases, Santa Rosa and Chico, which are between 15-25 minutes away by air. Cal Fire supports this project, and Staff has been working with Cal Fire on the projected runway closures. Helicopter access will not be impacted by the project, even during construction. Staff will continue to work with the contractor to limit the impact on Cal Fire and other airport users.

Recommended Action: Authorize City Manager to execute Grant Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and award of bid for Spec. 21-06 Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 2, contingent on Grant Offer to complete the Runway 15-33 width reduction from 150 feet to 75 feet; and install new lighting (Construction); and approve corresponding budget amendment.

BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: 77825200.80230.18032: $1,899,376.08 PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: 77825200.80230.18032: $2,760,433; 77800000.43299.18032: - $2,484,390; 77800000. -$124,220
FINANCING SOURCE: $2,258,536 FAA Grant, $112,926 Cal Trans Grant, $138,022 Fund 777 Airport Funds PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH:Mary Horger, Financial Services Manager; David Rapport, City Attorney; Mead & Hunt - Engineering FIrm

Attachment 1
Item # Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Total 1 AIRFIELD SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $115,000.00 $115,000.00
3 SWPPP 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00
4 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS 1 LS $28,000.00 $28,000.00
5 PLACE FIBER SEDIMENT ROLL 1100 LF $3.25 $3,575.00
6 PLACE INLET PROTECTION 15 EA $300.00 $4,500.00
7 EMULSIFIED ASPHALT SEAL COAT 6000 SY $6.50 $39,000.00 8 MARKING REMOVAL 18600 SF $2.25 $41,850.00
9 WHITE MARKING WITH REFLECTIVE MEDIA 18100 SF $1.50 $27,150.00 10 YELLOW MARKING WITH REFLECTIVE MEDIA 700 SF $1.50 $1,050.00 11 BLACK MARKING 11300 SF $1.25 $14,125.00
12 NO. 8 AWG, 5KV, L-824, TYPE C CABLE, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 15300 LF $3.00 $45,900.00 13 NO. 6 AWG, SOLID, BARE COPPER COUNTERPOISE WIRE, INSTALLED IN TRENCH, ABOVE THE DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT, INCLUDING CONNECTIONS/TERMINATIONS 12100 LF $2.50 $30,250.00 14 NON-ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 1-WAY, 2-INCH 1100 LF $22.00 $24,200.00 15 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 1-WAY, 2-INCH 11000 LF $60.00 $660,000.00 16 H-20 RATED ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE, STANDARD LID, SIZE 2, 24 INCH X 36 INCH X 30 INCH 1 EA $14,000.00 $14,000.00 17 AIRCRAFT RATED ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE, SPRING LOADED LID, SIZE 2, 36 INCH X 60 INCH X 30 INCH 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 18 DIRECTIONAL BORE 2W-4 INCH HDPE 700 LF $82.00 $57,400.00 19 LOCATE AND PROTECT EXISTING AIRFIELD ELECTRICAL 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 20 LED MEDIUM INTENSITY RUNWAY EDGE LIGHT, L-861(L) 42 EA $2,300.00 $96,600.00 21 LED MEDIUM INTENSITY THRESHOLD EDGE LIGHT, L-861E(L) 16 EA $2,300.00 $36,800.00 22 LED MEDIUM INTENSITY TAXIWAY EDGE LIGHT, L-861T(L) 37 EA $1,750.00 $64,750.00 23 LED GUIDANCE SIGN, SIZE 1, L-858(L), STYLE 2 5 EA $9,500.00 $47,500.00 24 LED GUIDANCE SIGN, SIZE 2, L-858(L), STYLE 2 1 EA $17,892.00 $17,892.00 25 MISCELLANEOUS LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 1 LS $9,500.00 $9,500.00 26 REMOVE RWY FIXTURE 42 EA $200.00 $8,400.00
27 REMOVE TWY FIXTURE 8 EA $1,000.00 $8,000.00
28 REMOVE AIRFIELD GUIDANCE SIGN 7 EA $500.00 $3,500.00 29 REMOVE RWY THRESHOLD EDGE LIGHT 16 EA $850.00 $13,600.00 30 REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR, COMPLETE 2 EA $300.00 $600.00 31 INSTALL 10KW FERRORESONANT CCR, COMPLETE 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Bid List $1,493,142.00
Item # Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Total 1 PLACE FIBER SEDIMENT ROLL 4200 LF $3.25 $13,650.00
2 NO. 12 AWG, 600V, XHHW-2 OR RHW-2, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 4150 LF $1.50 $6,225.00 3 NO. 8 AWG, 600V, XHHW-2 OR RHW-2, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 4170 LF $3.00 $12,510.00 4 NO. 6 AWG, 600V, XHHW-2 OR RHW-2, INSULATED GROUND, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 9650 LF $3.00 $28,950.00 5 2PR NO. 18 AWG, RS485, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 1050 LF $6.50 $6,825.00 6 6PR SHIELDED NO. 18 AWG, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 3100 LF $3.00 $9,300.00 7 NO. 6 AWG, 600V, XHHW-2 OR RHW-2, INSULATED, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 6450 LF $3.00 $19,350.00 8 NO. 2 AWG, 600V, XHHW-2 OR RHW-2, INSULATED, INSTALLED IN DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT 950 LF $6.00 $5,700.00 9 NO. 1/0 AWG, SOLID, BARE COPPER GUARD WIRE, INSTALLED IN TRENCH, ABOVE THE DUCT BANK OR CONDUIT, INCLUDING CONNECTIONS/TERMINATIONS 2445 LF $6.00 $14,670.00 10 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 1-WAY, 2-INCH 790 LF $30.00 $23,700.00 11 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 2-WAY, 2-INCH 250 LF $50.00 $12,500.00 12 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 4-WAY, 2-INCH 800 LF $75.00 $60,000.00 13 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 5-WAY, 2-INCH 400 LF $90.00 $36,000.00 14 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 6-WAY, 2-INCH 185 LF $120.00 $22,200.00 15 CONCRETE ENCASED ELECTRICAL DUCT BANK, 7-WAY, 2-INCH 20 LF $235.00 $4,700.00 16 H-20 RATED ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE, SPRING LOADED LID, SIZE 1, 24 INCH X 36 INCH X 36 INCH 15 EA $14,000.00 $210,000.00 17 ELECTRICAL JUNCTION STRUCTURE, L-868B WITH STEEL LID 2 EA $4,000.00 $8,000.00 18 DIRECTIONAL BORE 2W-2 INCH HDPE 160 LF $95.00 $15,200.00 19 INSTALL FAA-FURNISHED LED PAPI, L-880(L) 1 SET $118,000.00 $118,000.00 20 INSTALL FAA-FURNISHED LED RUNWAY END IDENTIFICATION LIGHT, L849(L) 2 SET $40,000.00 $80,000.00 21 REMOVE FAA OWNED VASI SYSTEM 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 22 REMOVE FAA OWNED RWY 33 REIL SYSTEM 1 LS $3,600.00 $3,600.00 23 INSTALL NEW RWY 15 PAPI &AMP; REIL ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Bid List $729,080.00
Total Bid $2,222,222.00
Runway 15-33 Pavement Rehabilitation, Phase 2
City of Ukiah
Bid Opening:2022-04-14
Vellutini Corporation dba Royal
Electric Company
Bid Schedule 1
8481 Carbide Court
Sacramento, CA 95828
Bid Status:Under Review
Listed Subs American Road Maintenance
Striping & Removal Seal Coat
Bailey's Trench less
Boring
Granite Construction Company
1324 S State Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
Trench Patching
Bid Schedule 2

Attachment 2

Agenda Item No: 13.a.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 5/4/2022
ITEM NO: 2022-1635

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Receive and File Third Quarter 2021-22 Financial Report.

DEPARTMENT: Finance PREPARED BY: Dan Buffalo, Finance Director PRESENTER: Dan Buffalo, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:

None
Summary: The City Council will receive a presentation on the third quarter (March 31) financial report for the City of Ukiah.

Background: The report provides readers with a summary of the City's financial position and activities through the fiscal year period ending March 31, 2022. This report is unaudited.

Discussion: The following link will direct readers to the report on the City's OpenGov platform, which is a dynamic and navigable presentation allowing readers to drill down into data to explore more detail than the former report offered.
https://stories.opengov.com/ukiahca/published/enKDWPFd4 The report is meant to be viewed through the OpenGov platform via a web browser, preferably Google Chrome.

Recommended Action: Receive and File Third Quarter 2021-22 Financial Report.

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: N/A

Agenda Item No: 13.b.

MEETING DATE/TIME: 5/4/2022
ITEM NO: 2022-1638

AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Receive Updates on City Council Committee and Ad Hoc Assignments, and, if Necessary, Consider Modifications to Assignments and/or the Creation/Elimination of Ad Hoc(s).

DEPARTMENT: City Clerk PREPARED BY: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk PRESENTER: Mayor Brown and Various Councilmembers
ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2022 City Council Special Assignments
Summary: City Council members will provide reports and updates on their committee and ad hoc assignments. If necessary, the Council may consider modifications.

Background: City Council members are assigned to a number of committees and ad hoc activities. These assignments are included as Attachment 1.

Discussion: Previously, the City Council discussed having more time allocated to reporting on committee and ad hoc activities. Often, the Council Reports section of the regular agenda is rushed due to impending business (i.e., public hearings), and not enough time is afforded for reports beyond community activities.

In an effort to foster regular updates on committee and ad hoc assignments, this item is being placed on the agenda to provide the City Council members an expanded opportunity to report on assignments and modify assignments as necessary.

Recommended Action: Receive report(s). The Council will consider modifications to committee and ad hoc assignments along with the creation/elimination ad hoc(s).

BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: No
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: N/A

2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS

COUNTY/REGIONAL
OnGoing One + Alternate MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Disaster Council
Shall meet a minimum
of once a year at a
time and place
designated upon call of
the chair
Place designated upon call of the chair or, if she/he is unavailable or unable to call such meeting, the first vice chair and then the City Manager or her/his designee.

Office of Emergency Management 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482467-5765 - Tami Bartolomei Develop any necessary emergency and mutual aid plans, agreements, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations.

OrozcoDuenas- Alternate
Tami Bartolomei, Office of Emergency Management Coordinator; 467-5765 [email protected] Greater Ukiah Business & Tourism Alliance
3rd Tuesday of month, 11:30 a.m.
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
Promotes tourism and works to strengthen and promote the historic downtown and businesses within the greater Ukiah area DuenasRodin - Alternate
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager;
467-5793 [email protected]
Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG)
1st Monday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors Chambers
501 Low Gap Road
Ukiah, CA
Executive Director
367 N. State Street, Ste. 206Ukiah, CA 95482463-1859
Plan and allocate State funding, transportation, infrastructure and project County wide BrownRodin- Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) 2nd Thursday of month, 6:00 p.m.

Civic Center300 Seminary Avenueconference room 5
IWPC Staff P.O. Box 1247Ukiah, CA 95482391-7574 - Candace Horsley Develops coordination for water resources and current water rights: Potter Valley project - Eel River Diversion OrozcoBrown- Alternate
Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected] Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA)
3rd Thursday of every other month (varies), 10:00 a.m.

Willits Council Chambers
Solid Waste Director3200 Taylor DriveUkiah, CA 95482468-9710 County-wide Solid Waste JPA Brown Duenas- Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors
Last Wednesday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Alternating locations - Ukiah Conference Center or Fort Bragg, or Point Arena Executive Director241 Plant RoadUkiah, CA 95482462-1422 County-wide bus transportation issues and funding Duenas Orozco - Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] North Coast Opportunities (NCO) 4th Wednesday of month, 2 p.m. Alternating locations - Ukiah and Lakeport Ross Walker, Governing Board Chair North Coast Opportunities413 North State StreetUkiah, CA 95482 Assist low income and disadvantaged people to become self reliant Bartolomei(appointed 12/19/18)
Tami Bartolomei, Community Services Administrator; 467-5765 [email protected]
North Coast Rail Authority (NCRA) 2nd Wednesday of month, 10:30 a.m. Various Locations - announced 419 Talmage Road, Suite M Ukiah, CA 95482 463-3280 Provides a unified and revitalized rail infrastructure meeting the freight and passenger needs of the region Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA)
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (only 5 times a year)
Windsor Town Hall
Russian River Watershed Association Attn: Daria Isupov425 South Main St., Sebastopol, CA 95472508-3670 Consider issues related to Russian river - plans projects and funding requests RodinBrown- Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) 2nd Thursday of month, 1:30 p.m.

Board of Supervisors Chambers; 501
Low Gap RoadUkiah, CA
County Executive OfficeNicole French501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010Ukiah, CA 95482463-4441 GSA serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency inthe Ukiah Valley basin CraneDuenas- Alternate
Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected]

COUNTY/REGIONAL
One + Staff Alternate MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Economic Development & Financing Corporation (EDFC)
2nd Thursday of month, 2:00 p.m.

Primarily 631 S. Orchard Street (location varies)
Executive Director631 South Orchard AvenueUkiah, CA 95482467-5953 Multi-agency co-op for economic development and business loan program Riley(appointed 12/19/18)
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] Sun House Guild ex officio 2nd Tuesday of month, 4:30 p.m. Sun House 431 S. Main St. Ukiah, CA 431 S. Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 467-2836 Support and expand Grace Hudson Museum Orozco Neil Davis- Alternate David Burton, Museum Director; 467-2836 [email protected] Continued -

COUNTY/REGIONAL
One + Staff Alternate

MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Mendocino Youth Project JPA Board of Directors
3rd Wednesday of month, 7:45 a.m. 776 S. State Street Conference Room Mendocino Co. Youth Project776 S. State Street, Ste. 107Ukiah, CA 95482 707-463-4915 Targets all youth with a focus on drug and alcohol prevention, healthy alternatives and empowering youth to make healthy choices Cedric Crook, Patrol Lieutenant
Cedric Crook, Patrol Lieutenant Nob; 463-6771; [email protected] Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) - Commission
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (see NCPA calendar)
Roseville, CAand other locations
651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678916-781-4202
Pool of State and local power utilities developing and operating power generation, providing scheduling and related energy services and providing regulatory and legislative support.

Crane - Commissioner Sauers - Alternate and
Commissioner in absence of Commissioner Crane
Cindi Sauers - Electric Utility Director;463-6286 [email protected] Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) – Lodi Energy Center (LEC) Appointment 2nd Monday of month, 10:00 AM Lodi, CA and other locations 651 Commerce DriveRoseville, CA 95678916-781-4299
Committee oversees the operation, maintenance and expenditures of the LEC 300 MW generating project.

Sauers – Project Participate Appointee
Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director,463‐6286, [email protected] Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC)
4th Wednesday of month, 10 a.m.
35 Iron Point Circle Suite 225 Folsom, CA
35 Iron Point Cir #225Folsom, CA 95630916-852-1673; [email protected] Provide electric transmission to its Member utilities through transmission line ownership or contract arrangements.

CraneSauers - Alternate
Cindi Sauers - Electric Utility Director;463-6286 [email protected] 1 2/25/2022
ATTACHMENT 1

2022 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS
LOCAL/COUNTY/REGIONAL/LIASONS OnGoing One or Two Council and/or Staff

MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT League of California Cities Redwood Empire Legislative Committee Prior to Division Meetings, meets 3x in person and then via conference call Various locations that are announced
Redwood Empire League President; Public Affairs Program Manager (916) 658-8243 Elected city officials and professional city staff attend division meetings throughout the year to share what they are doing and advocate for their interests in Sacramento Rodin Orozco-Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221 [email protected] City Selection Committee Called as required by the Clerk of the Board BOS Conference Room 501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1090 Ukiah, CA C/O: BOS 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm 1090 Ukiah, CA 95482 463-4441 Makes appointments to LAFCO and Airport Land Use Commission Mayor Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Investment Oversight Committee Varies
Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482
Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
Reviews City investments, policies, and strategies
CraneOrozco, Alternate
Alan Carter, Treasurer
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220 [email protected] Library Advisory Board
3rd Wednesdays of alternate months; 1:00 p.m.

Various Mendocino County Libraries Ukiah County Library 463-4491 Review library policy and activities Supervisor Mulheren Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217; [email protected] Ukiah Players Theater Board of Directors 3rd Tuesday of month, 6:00 p.m 1041 Low Gap Rd Ukiah, CA 95482 462-1210 1041 Low Gap Rd Ukiah, CA 95482 462-1210 To oversee the activities, organization and purpose of the Ukiah Players Theater Greg Owen, Airport Manager (appointed 12/19/18) Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD) Committee Quarterly 511 S. Orchard, Ste. D Ukiah, CA 95482 511 S. Orchard Ukiah, CA 95482 Information exchange with UUSD Board Chair, Mayor, Superintendent, and City Manager Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221 [email protected] Russian River Flood Control District (RRFCD) Liaison
1st Monday of month, 5:30 p.m.
151 Laws Ave.,Suite D Ukiah, CA
151 Laws Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482; [email protected]; 462-5278 Proactively manage the water resources of the upper Russian River for the benefit of the people and environment of Mendocino County White/Orozco Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected] Mendocino County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) 1st Monday of month, 9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers Executive Director200 S. School Street, Ste. 2 Ukiah, CA 95482463-4470 Required by legislation - planning spheres of influence, annexation, service areas, and special districts Rodin/Crane Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development; 463-6219; [email protected] Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission As needed
BOS Conference Room 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1090, Ukiah, CA Mendocino County Executive Office 501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1010 Ukiah, CA 95482 To formulate a land use compatibility plan, provide for the orderly growth of the airport and the surrounding area, and safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity Owen/Schlatter
Greg Owen, Airport Manager; 467-2855; [email protected] Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development; 463-6219; [email protected] Mendocino County 1st District Liaison Monthly; TBD
Civic Center Annex conference room #5 411 West Clay St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the City's 1st District Supervisor BrownCrane- Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221; [email protected] Mendocino County 2nd District Liaison 1st Wednesdays of month, 8:00 a.m.

Civic Center Annex conference room #5 411 West Clay St. Ukiah, CA 95482 Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the County's 2nd District Supervisor Brown Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] LOCAL/COUNTY/REGIONAL/LIASONS OnGoing One or Two Council and/or Staff

MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Fire Executive Committee 2nd Wednesdays of month, 3:45 p.m. Ukiah Valley Conference Center, 200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA Stephanie AbbaCivic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482 [email protected] Per the recently adopted agreement between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District Orozco/Brown Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief; 463-6263; [email protected]

STANDING COMMITTEES MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Equity and Diversity TBD Virtual Meeting Room (link to be created) Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Improve diversity and equity in the City’s workforce and municipal services Orozco/Duenas Traci Boyl, City Manager's Office Management Analyst; 467-5720 [email protected] 2 2/25/2022

COMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT
Electric Grid Operational Improvements Crane/Orozco Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director; 463-629586 [email protected]
Trench Cut Policy Development Crane/Brown Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected]
Budget Development Best Practices and
Financial Policy For FY 22/23 Budget Crane/Brown
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463-6220 [email protected]
Sheri Mannion, Human Resource Director/Risk
Manager; 463-6272, [email protected]
Advance Planning & Policy for Sphere of
Influence (SOI), Municipal Service Review (MSR),
Annexation, Tax Sharing, Detachment, and Out
of Area Service Agreements
Crane/Rodin
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager
463-6221 [email protected]
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467-5793 [email protected]
Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director
463-6219 [email protected]
Sean White, Director of Water Resources;
463-5712 [email protected]
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected]
Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director;
463-629586 [email protected]
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220
[email protected]
2021 Electric Rate Study Crane/Duenas Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director; 463‐6286 [email protected]
Housing Policy Rodin/Orozco Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director 463-6219 [email protected]
UVSD/ City Relations
Ad hoc committee to address specific issues with the
Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, including discussion of overall sewer system service delivery policies, operating policy revisions, potential revisions to the current
Operating Agreement, and cost sharing
Crane/Brown
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463‐6220 [email protected]
Sean White, Water Resources Director
463‐5712 [email protected]
Upper Russian River Water Agency/City
Relations Crane/Brown Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463‐5712 [email protected]
Orr Street Bridge Corridor Rodin/Duenas Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected]
Complete Streets Rodin/Crane
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected]
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467-5793 [email protected]
Neil Davis, Community Services Director
467-5764 [email protected]
Cannabis Ordinance Modifications Rodin/Duenas Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director 463‐6219 [email protected]
Special Districts Brown/Crane
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467‐5793 [email protected]
Public Financing Rodin/Orozco
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463‐6220 [email protected]
2022 AD HOC COMMITTEES
3 3/17/2022