Ukiah City Council
May 18, 2022

28 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 National Register of Historic Places. As described in the Summary of Findings in Section III of the ISMND, although it was discovered that the City’s local historic inventories (1985 and 1999) were not adopted by resolution or ordinance (as defined Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) to qualify as a local historic resource), the City recognizes the importance of the City’s inventory as it relates to local history, and has a precedent of processing Demolition Permits for buildings listed on the inventory featuring local historic significance. As such, the analysis and proposed mitigation measures contained herein are necessary and adequate for reducing potential impacts to historic resources.

A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared by APD Preservation, LLC in January, 2022 (Attachment A), to further research and evaluate the building’s historic significance. Under CEQA (Section 5024.1(c)), historic-era buildings older than 50 years are most commonly evaluated in reference to Criteria 1 (important events), Criteria 2 (important persons) or Criteria 3 (architectural value). To be considered eligible under these criteria the property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its important qualities. Integrity is judged in relation to seven aspects including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Historic Resource Evaluation for the Dragon’s Lair building provides an analysis of this criteria to determine if the building is historically or culturally “important” under CEQA. The evaluation (2022) found that the original building was constructed in 1857 and replaced once in 1890 with a new hay barn, but was destroyed during the 1917 fire that began two blocks west of the building. A new building was constructed in 1921 but was significantly modified between 1938 and 1963 when it was converted to retail (uses included several feed stores, a cheese and wine store, and other office/retail businesses). Modifications made to the building during this time included replacing 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. Dragon’s Lair retail business has been at the location since 1995.

In conclusion, the evaluation determined 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.” As such, the Dragon’s Lair building qualifies as a local historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for its association with the 1917 fire. However, the analysis states that the “dilapidated utilitarian building” is not architecturally distinctive and does not possess high artistic values, and as such, does not appear to be significant for its architectural merit (criterion 3).

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.

As noted in the Summary of Findgins Section of this ISMND, at the May 4, 2022 City Council meeting, Council found that the building qualifies as historic under UCC 3016(e), criteria 1) for being the only remaining building with metal clad siding; and 2) for being the only remaining building to tell the story of how this block functioned as a service hub for agricultural commerce. Because of these findings, the following mitigation measure is proposed to substitute Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

CUL-2: The 101 South Main Street building shall not be demolished until there is a development proposal approved, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code, specifically the Downtown Zoning Code. At the time of demolition, the metal clad siding on the west and north portions of the building shall be salvaged to the extent feasible. Because the metal clad is in several narrow strips and may not be in useable condition, using all of the material as is may not be feasible. Alternatively, new development shall be designed to incorporate a portion of the façade of the existing building. This may include using a portion of the metal clad as an architectural feature, or using masonry brick or other materials and/or design components that

29 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
are visually similar to pay homage to the building. New development shall require review by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Downtown Zoning Code.

The proposed substituted CUL-2 also further mitigates the impact of demolishing the building that is associated with the 1917 fire rebuild efforts and association with agricultural commerce in the area.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1, requiring photo documentation aids in lessening impacts from demolition and is not proposed to be revised. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

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 building and does not propose new development at this time, mitigation measures related to architectural preservation are not appropriate.

Instead, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require photo documentation of the building to catalogue its existence and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires an educational plaque be erected on-site to acknowledge the building’s 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 impact. As noted in the City’s General Plan Historic and Archeological Resources Element (1995), the Project site is not identified as an area of high cultural sensitivity- 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. Because the Project site is fully developed with pavement and buildings, and the site does not have a high potential for cultural resources to occur, less than significant impacts would occur as a result of the Project. Additionally, construction of the Project will be required to adhere to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (e-f) which specifically addresses actions to be taken in the event that human remains or archeological resources are accidentally discovered during ground disturbing activities.

As noted above, 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. Based on the aforementioned, impacts to cultural and archeological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

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.

CUL-2: The 101 South Main Street building shall not be demolished until there is a development proposal approved, in accordance with the Ukiah City Code, specifically the Downtown Zoning Code. At the time of demolition, the metal clad siding on the west and north portions of the building shall be salvaged to the extent feasible. Because the metal clad is in several narrow strips and painted, using the material as is may not be feasible. Alternatively, new development shall be designed to incorporate the façade of the existing building. This may include masonry brick or other

30 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
materials that are visually similar to the existing west and north façade of the building. New development shall require review by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Downtown Zoning Code.

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.

6. Energy
ENERGY. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would significantly impact energy if construction or operation of the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or if the Project would conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Environmental Setting: Recent legislature has urged the State of California to conserve energy resources and provide renewable and zero-carbon energy resources in place of fossil fuels for generating electricity in the state. Specific to construction projects, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain standards to regulate energy consumption through Green Building Standards to ensure construction and operation does not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. In addition, current building codes require energy efficiency systems to be included in their plans for permit review. These building codes are regularly updated statewide through California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24” In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy, with standards to promote better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition. However, fuel energy consumed during demolition would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest CARB and

31 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
EPA engine emissions standards which require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Because no development is proposed, there would be no operational sources of energy consumed. All future development would be required to comply with the aforementioned regulations related to energy efficiency. With adherence to the aforementioned regulations, impacts from the Proposed Project related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

32 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

7. Geology and Soils
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Significance Criteria: The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to geological or soil resources if it exposed people or buildings to seismic risk; ruptured a known fault; produced strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, landslides or substantial soil erosion; is located on expansive soil or unstable ground or create unstable ground; or destroyed a unique paleontological resource or geologic feature.

33 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
Environmental Setting: The Ukiah Valley is part of an active seismic region that contains the Maacama Fault, which traverses the Valley in a generally northwest-southeast direction, approximately 0.8-mi east of the City limits at its closets point. The Ukiah Valley is located within the North Coast Range geologic province, comprised of a geologic feature unique to California, the Franciscan Formation. The Franciscan Formation is comprised of serpentine, sandstone, and other sedimentary rocks. Based on California Geological Survey maps and the Background Report for the County of Mendocino General Plan Update (prepared by P.M.C., 2003), the City of Ukiah is outside of known areas of historic faults, Holocene Fault, Late Quaternary Fault and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because most of the lands within the City are generally flat, slope instability hazards are not a concern, with the exception of lands within the Western Hills.

Discussion: (a-d) No Impact. The Project site sits at approximately 627 feet in elevation and has a slight west to east slope. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, the soils within the Project site are characterized as “210- Urban Land”, which is described as soils in highly populated areas containing largely built-out environments. In addition, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the site does not contain expansive or unstable soils and is not susceptible to landslides, nor strong seismic ground shaking.

The Project includes demolition of existing buildings, but will not include trenching or significant ground disturbing activities that would result in erosion or loss of topsoil because the existing foundation and paved site would remain. Lastly, no new development is proposed that would require the use of septic tanks or other waste water treatment facilities. For the above reasons, the Project would have no impact to geology and soils.

Mitigation Measures: None

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions if it would generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Environmental Setting: Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere around the world from a variety of sources, including the combustion of fuel for energy and transportation, cement manufacturing, and refrigerant emissions. GHGs are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse

34 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
traps heat. GHGs may be emitted a result of human activities, as well as through natural processes.

Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change.

The state of California has adopted various administrative initiatives and legislation relating to climate change, much of which set aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions statewide. Although lead agencies must evaluate climate change and GHG emissions of projects subject to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or specific thresholds of significance and do not specify GHG reduction mitigation measures. No state agency has developed binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating significant effects in CEQA documents. Thus, lead agencies exercise their discretion in determining how to analyze GHGs. Because there are no adopted GHG thresholds applicable to the Project, and because the Project is considered “small scale”, meaning that it does not include new large buildings or components requiring significant construction that would result in increased GHGs, the below qualitative analysis is appropriate.

Pursuant to AB 32, on December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the current Climate Change Scoping Plan, California’s, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan Update). The 2017 Scoping Plan Update outlines the proposed framework of action for achieving the 2030 GHG target of 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan Update incorporates a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. These are largely related to operational emissions, which are not applicable to the Project. However, the Scoping Plan does include some regulations intended to reduce the amount of emissions related to construction equipment and vehicle trips applicable to the construction of the proposed Project. Most of these regulations are also incorporated into existing California Building Code regulations and other state laws applicable to operation of vehicles and equipment.

Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. As described in Section V.3, Air Quality, demolition activities requiring the use of heavy equipment, tools (mechanical ram, dump truck, excavator, pickup truck, backhoe, front end loader, bobcat & stinger for concrete demolition) and vehicle trips (construction workers, equipment transportation, and dump truck haul trips) could result in direct GHG emissions. Demolition would take approximately three weeks with a crew of six construction workers.

Demolition activities including the use of diesel engine equipment would be subject MCAQMD regulations intended to address air quality impacts and GHG emissions. Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with the regulations identified in the Scoping Plan Update to reduce energy use and transportation emissions, most of which are also incorporated into California Building Codes and state law. As a result, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions. With the temporary nature of demolition activities and adherence to the aforementioned regulations, impacts related to GHGs would be would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None.

35 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

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Significance Criteria: The Project would result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts if it exposed people to hazardous materials or placed them into hazardous situations; if it released hazardous materials or emissions into the environment or within 0.25 miles of a school; if it is located on a listed hazardous materials site; if it would create a hazard due to its proximity to a public airport or private airstrip; if it would create excessive noise for people in the area; if it would interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan; or if it would expose people or structures to significant risks due to wildland fire.

Environmental Setting: Mendocino County has adopted numerous plans related to hazard management and mitigation including, but not limited to: Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Operational Area Emergency Plan, etc. The most recent plan, the Mendocino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) was adopted by the

36 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
County in December, 2020. The MJHMP provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County, identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property, and provides a mitigation strategy to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources. The four cities within Mendocino County, including the City of Ukiah, participated in preparation of the MJHMP to individually assess hazards, explore hazard vulnerability, develop mitigation strategies, and create their own plan for each respective city (referred to as a “jurisdictional annex” to the MJHMP). The City of Ukiah adopted its jurisdictional annex chapter of the MJHMP on November 18, 2020. Hazards identified for the City if 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.

The Ukiah Municipal Airport is located within the City of Ukiah jurisdictional limits. The Ukiah Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (UKIALUCP) was adopted by the Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission on May 20, 2021 and adopted by the Ukiah City Council on June 16, 2021. The UKIALUCP identifies areas (known as “compatibility zones”) with potential hazards and impacts to persons using or working within the vicinity of the airport.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are required to maintain databases of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. The site does not include any known hazardous waste sites, as mapped by the SWRCB’s GeoTracker or DTSC’s EnviroStor databases.

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 within a High or Very High fire severity zone.

Discussion: (a-b) Less than significant impact. Demolition activities using heavy equipment and tools would include the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of small quantities of common hazardous materials, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, and oils. However, the Project would adhere to state and federal regulations related to the transportation, use, and disposal of such materials. The use of these types and quantities of materials over the three-week construction period would not pose a significant risk to the public and/or environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
(c) No impact. There are no schools within 0.25 mi of the Project 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. As noted above, the use of all hazardous materials will be in accordance with applicable regulations intended to reduce potential impacts to the environment and people. As such, no impact would occur.
(d) No impact. As previously noted, the Project site does not contain any listed hazardous sites. There is one listed cleanup site on the GeoTracker database adjacent to the Project, located at 203 South Main Street (case No. T064500019), but the site has been cleaned and the case has been closed as of 1995. As such, no impact would occur.
(e) Less than significant impact. The Project parcel is located approximately 1.1 mi 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

37 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
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 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. (f) Less than significant impact. There are no components of the Project that would impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Access is available to the site and there are no components of the Project that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted MJHMP or other emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
(g) Less than significant impact. As previously noted, the Project site is not located within a High or Very High fire severity zone. The Project does not propose new development within a High or Very High severity zone that could expose people or buildings 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). Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None.

38 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

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would
the project:

Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact hydrology and water quality if it violated water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degraded surface or groundwater quality; substantially decreased groundwater supplies or impeded sustainable groundwater management; altered drainage patterns in a manner that would cause substantial on- or off-site erosion, polluted runoff or excessive runoff that caused flooding; impeded or redirected flood flows; risked a release of pollutants due to inundation if in a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone; or conflicted with a water quality plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Environmental Setting: Average rainfall in Ukiah is slightly less than 35 inches. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter. Rainfall is often from brief, intense storms, which move in from the northwest. Virtually no rainfall occurs during the summer months. Surface water supplies for the Ukiah Valley include the Eel River, from which water is diverted into the Russian River watershed through the Potter Valley Project, Lake Mendocino, and the Russian River. Groundwater is drawn from the

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
Ukiah Valley groundwater basin. The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin is the northernmost basin in the Russian River water system and underlies an area of approximately 60 square miles. Water enters the groundwater system via percolation of surface waters and through the soil. The creeks and streams in the Ukiah Valley provide drainage channels for groundwater recharge, as well as domestic and agricultural water supply. 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 new hookup scenarios and determined that there is capacity through the 2045 planning horizon to serve these growth projections.

Discussion: (a-e) No impact. No groundwater would be used for demolition. Water used for dust control would be from a water truck. The Project would not require water to be discharged and groundwater would not be impacted by the Project. Additionally, there are no water resources such as creeks or streams on the Project site, nor in the immediate vicinity, that would be impacted or altered as a result of the Project. Lastly, the Project is not located within a tsunami hazard zone, nor a flood zone, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As such, no impact to hydrology and water quality would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None.

11. Land Use and Planning
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Significance Criteria: The Project would significantly impact land use if it physically divided an established community or conflicted with a land use plan, policy or regulation intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact, such as the general plan or zoning code.

Environmental Setting: The City of Ukiah includes approximately 4.72 square miles. It serves as the County Seat of Mendocino County, as well as the county’s commercial hub. Predominant land uses in the City include single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial uses ranging from local commercial to service commercial, as well manufacturing, industrial and public facilities.

Development and land use patterns within the City of Ukiah are governed by the City’s General Plan, which was originally adopted in 1995, and currently in the process of being updated. Because the 2040 General Plan has not yet been adopted, the 1995 General Plan is the applicable plan relating to land use within the City. More specifically, zoning and land use are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in Division 9, Chapter 2 of the Ukiah City Code. The purpose of the Ukiah Zoning Code is to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.

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
Discussion: (a) No impact. Physical division of an existing community would typically be associated with construction of a new highway, railroad, park or other linear feature being constructed in a manner that would bifurcate an established neighborhood or community. Because the Project site does not contain existing residences and is immediately surrounded by existing roads and commercial and public uses (as opposed to an existing residential community), the Project would not result in the division of an established community. No impact would occur. (b) Less than significant. The Project site has a General Plan (1995) designation of Commercial (C) and is zoned Urban Center (UC) within Downtown Zoning Code. The Commercial General Plan designation applies to lands appropriate for a variety of commercial uses where commerce and business may occur; uses are further specified within the corresponding zoning districts.

The Historic and Architectural Resources element (Chapter V.3) of the 1995 General Plan discusses cultural and historic resources within the City of Ukiah. Specifically, this element discusses both historical residential and commercial buildings. Regarding privately owned commercial buildings it states, “The General Plan needs to provide a balance between the preservation of historic and archeological sites for future study and analysis and the demands for current growth and development.

Project design and other features of development flexibility can provide the needed protection while still preserving property rights. The purpose of this element is to establish the criteria for this balance.” Section 3.04.02 provides goals and policies related to preservation of commercial buildings identified as historic on Figure V.3-EE. The buildings proposed for demolition are not identified in this figure.

The General Plan also states that “Situations may occur when an historic building, or a building with historic value, may need to be demolished for any number of reasons. With many historic resources, it may be appropriate to "mitigate" removal by photographing and recording as much information as is known about the site.” As noted in Section V.5, Cultural Resources, the Project proposes photo documentation and salvaging exisitng metal clad material or incorporating the appearance of the building at the time of new developmentan educational plaque to be erected on-site to acknowledge its historic significance related to the 1917 fire, consistent with this General Plan statement.

One of the main purposes of the Downtown Zoning Code (contained within Article 18 of the City’s Zoning Code) is to create an urban environment that implements and fulfills the objectives and strategies of the General Plan to facilitate the coexistence of a wide range of mixed uses in close proximity within a downtown urban environment. The UC zoning designation allows for higher density residential and mixed-use buildings that may accommodate retail, office, services, local and regional civic uses, and residential uses. The Downtown Zoning Code does not contain regulations pertaining to demolition, with the exception of requiring City Council approval to demolish buildings older than 50 years old, in accordance with Ukiah City Code Section 3016. As noted in Section V.5, Cultural Resources, per Ukiah City Code Section 3016(b), buildings over 50 years old proposed for demolition that do not meet the exemption criteria of being either an immediate safety hazard, or an accessory building that is not listed on the local historic inventory, shall be reviewed for their historic or architectural significance. Because the buildings do not meet the exemption criteria noted within the code, on December 28, 2021, the City’s Demolition Review Committee reviewed the Project and voted to recommend demolition of both buildings to the City Council. This Initial Study is intended to analyze the impacts associated with demolition of the buildings, in accordance with CEQA. The Demolition Permit, together with this Initial Study, will be reviewed by City Council for final consideration.See Cultural Resources Section for more information.

As discussed in Section V.4, Biological Resources, the Downtown Zoning Code contains policies pertaining to the protection of trees. However, none of the species proposed for removal are species identified as needing protection. Lastly, no development is proposed at this time. Once the buildings are demolished, the site would be cleared and remain vacant until a proposal for development is

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
submitted and approved through the discretionary process; all new development would be subject to the development requirements contained within the Downtown Zoning Code.

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?

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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.

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
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

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
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 salvaging exisitng metal clad material or incorporating the appearance of the building at the time of new developmentan 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

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

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.

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
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

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

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

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
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

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
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 salvaging exisitng metal clad material or incorporating the appearance of the building at the time of new development. 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.

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
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/

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

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.

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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
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

64 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: CUL-2: The 101 South Main Street
building shall not be demolished until there
is a development proposal approved, in
accordance with the Ukiah City Code,
specifically the Downtown Zoning Code. At
the time of demolition, the metal clad siding
on the west and north portions of the
building shall be salvaged to the extent
feasible. Because the metal clad is in
several narrow strips and may not be in
useable condition, using all of the material
as is may not be feasible. Alternatively, new
development shall be designed to
incorporate a portion of the façade of the
existing building. This may include using a
portion of the metal clad as an architectural
feature, or using masonry brick or other
materials and/or design components that
are visually similar to pay homage to the
building. New development shall require
review by the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission, in accordance with
the Downtown Zoning Code.

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
Applicant or
contractor
Applicant or
contractor; City
of Ukiah
Community
Development
Department
Prior to receiving final
completion of
the demolition
permit and
prior to new
development
being
constructed

65 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
property owner shall receive written
approval from the Community Development
Director to do so.

66 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
"55"$).&/5
"

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
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.

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  #






$


!


%!

!




!
!


!


$


!



!$
!&
&
!
!




!"
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 Figure 11: Perkins ad,
Mendocino Democrat,
November 1, 1873
Figure 12: McKindley Livery, Ukiah
City Press, August 9, 1878
Figure 10: Ukiah Daily
Journal, November 27, 1891

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 Figure 13: Holz Feed Co. Advertisement, Ukiah Dispatch Democrat, June 24, 1921

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).

Figure 18: M. Vonsen Co. advertisement,
Ukiah Republican Press, April 2, 1930
Figure 19: Mercer's Feeds
Advertisement, Ukiah
Dispatch, May 15, 1927
Figure 20: H & W Feed Co. advertisement,
Ukiah Daily Journal, November 9, 1956

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.

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 

 










 (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 "$






$-7;18-,
14.583):154
%:):-
5.
)21.5841)

&0-
$-95;8+-9
/-4+>


1(, 17
 PR-23-005127 "$& &
!
"$
%
 
$$&
!


































5482
"$
$(
$!$



 













$"
%:):;9
5,-







3S




3'$1
(23(-&2





$5($6
.#$

$5($6$1

 3$

")/-




1 5.





5




$-95;8+-
)3-
58



101 South Main Street, Ukiah "

!:0-8

,-4:1.1-8
" 

002-231-01-00
*"


5+):154







5:
.58
";*21+):154



'48-9:81+:-,

)

5;4:>

Mendocino



)4,
 "
 $
-#
 !
.1
 #

33 "'

." 3(.-
 /
2
-$"$22 17
*
'%%

#;),



Ukiah ):- 2018

& 15N

$ 12W


5.
5.
%-+


"

##1$22

101 South Main Street
(37



Ukiah

(/ 95482-4919
#




(5$
,.1$
3' -
.-$
%.1
+ 1&$
-#.1
+(-$ 1
1$2.41"$2

.-$ 10S, 482165.27 , 4333451.62 ,
$
3'$1
." 3(.- +
 3

$&
/ 1"$+

#(1$"3(.-2
$+$5 3(.-
#$"(, +
#$&1$$2
$3" APN 002-231-01-00 "
)
-9+816:154
$2"1(!$
1$2.41"$
-#
(32
, ).1
$+$,$-32

-"+4#$
#$2(&-
, 3$1( +2
".-#(3(.-
+3$1 3(.-2
2(8$
2$33(-&
-#
!.4-# 1($2

"
*
$-95;8+-
::81*;:-9

(23
331(!43$2
-#
".#$2




HP6 (1-3 story commercial)


"

$-95;8+-9
"8-9-4:


4(+#(-&

314"341$


!)$"3

(3$
(231("3


+$,$-3
.%
(231("3


3'$1
2.+ 3$2
$3"



!
$2"1(/3(.-
.%
'.3.

5($6
# 3$

""$22(.-


1/7/20, West
"
):-
549:8;+:-,/-
)4,
%5;8+-



1921 (Ukiah Republican Press)
(23.1("


1$'(23.1("



.3'
"
!=4-8
)4,
,,8-99
Todd & Noel Schapmire, 390 W
Standley St., Ukiah, CA 95482
"
$-+58,-,
*>
 ,$
%%(+( 3(.-
-#

##1$22
Alice P. Duffee
APD Preservation LLC
"
):-
$-+58,-, Jan. 2020
"

%;8<->
&>6-
$2"1(!$
Intensive
"



$-658:
1:):154

(3$
2415$7
1$/.13

-#
.3'$1
2.41"$2
.1
$-3$1
-.-$ “Historic Resource Evaluation”, Duffee (1/2020), 1999 Update ::)+03-4:9 

." 3(.-
 / .-3(-4 3(.-

'$$3

4(+#(-&

314"341$
-#
!)$"3
$".1#

1"' $.+.&(" +
$".1#
(231("3
$".1#

(-$ 1
$ 341$
$".1#

(++(-&
3 3(.-
$".1#

."*

13
$".1#

13(% "3
$".1#

'.3.&1 /'
$".1#

3'$1
(23


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) 


'.3.&1 /'
.1
1 6(-&

'.3.&1 /'
1$04(1$#
%.1
!4(+#(-&2
2314"341$2
-#
.!)$"32

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 $%






%.9=2:.-
26/7:5*<276
&<*<.
7/
*42/7:62*

'1.
%.;7=:,.;
0.6,@

.&)
.5



PR-23-005127
$%'!"'
#
$%&
"
%%'
#"


5482
(

"
&'%('(%
"
#
'
%#%
%.;7=:,.
"*5.
7:


//&$*"!
5
." +.!".

101 South Main Street, Ukiah "% $
&<*<=;
7-. 3CS
$*0. 2 7/ 5

&/0+.&

)"





101 South Main Street

+))+*

)"



101 South Main Street
 

.&$&*
(

/"





Commercial 


."/"*0

/"


Commercial

:,12<.,<=:*4
&<@4.


Utilitarian

76;<:=,<276

2;<7:@

+*/0.1 0&+*
!
0"

(0".
0&+*/

*!
!
0"
+#

(0".
0&+*/
1917-1921

!7>.-


"7


).;


(6367?6


*<. #:2026*4
7,*<276 
%.4*<.-
.*<=:.;




. %&0" 0

UNK

1&(!".

UNK


&2062/2,*6,.

'1.5.

Commercial Architecture :.* Ukiah, Mendocino County $.:27-
7/
&2062/2,*6,.



1921 $:78.:<@
'@8.

Commercial 8842,*+4.
:2<.:2*


//+ &
0"!
2"*0




//+ &
0"!
"./+*




. %&0" 01."



+0"*0&
(
0+

&"(!
*#+.)
0&+*




%./.:.6,.;
“Historic Resource Evaluation,” Duffee (1/2020)












 
")
.'/

















>*4=*<7:

Alice P. Duffee, APD Preservation
*<.
7/
>*4=*<276 January 2020
None

&/ 1//
&),+.0
* "
&*
0".)/
+#
%&/0+.&
(
+.

. %&0" 01.
(
+*0"40

/
!"#&*"!
5
0%")"
,".&+!

*!
$"+$.
,%&
/ +,"

(/+

!!."//
&*0"$.&05

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.
.


!!&0&+*
(
"/+1. "

00.&10"/

&/0

00.&10"/

*!
+!"/

HP6 (1-3 story commercial)

'"0 %

,
3&0%
*+.0%

..+3
."-1&."!

%&/
/,
"
."/".2"!
#+.
+##& &
(
+))"*0/

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 ⎯ 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
Continuation
Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information









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 ⎯ 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
Continuation
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 ⎯ 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

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 buildings 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 recommendation, as well as approval of the ISMND for the Project.

11. At the May 4, 2022 Council meeting, Council considered authorization to issue the Demolition Permit for 101 and 105 South Main Street, as well as approval of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Project. At this meeting, Council determined that the 105 South Main Street building has no historic significance (5-0 vote) under UCC Section 3016. As such, no further action by Council is needed for 105 South Main Street and the Demolition Permit for that building may be issued.

12. Regarding 101 South Main Street, the Council determined that the following UCC 3016(e) criteria applies to the building: 1) Has special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind-in this case the metal clad; and 2) Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history because it is the only remaining building to tell the story of how this block functioned as a service hub for agricultural commerce. Consideration of the Demolition Permit for this building and adoption of the ISMND were continued to the May 18, 2022 City Council meeting.

13. Because of these findings, at the May 18, 2022 Council meeting, Mitigation Measure CUL2(requiring an educational plaque to be erected) was substituted for a new CUL-2, requiring either salvaging of the metal clad siding or incorporating design elements of the building into the design at the time of new development to pay homage to the existing building. The substituted CUL-2 is found to be more effective in mitigating impacts related to demolition of the 101 South Main Street building and would not itself have any adverse environmental impacts. The substitution of this mitigation measure was completed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section § 15074.1, Substitution of Mitigation Measures in a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and does not require recirculation of the ISMND.

14. At the May 18, 2022 Council meeting, in accordance with UCC 3016, Council determined that a viable market does not exist for the 101 South Main Street building based on information submitted by the Applicant. Per UCC 3016, the Building Permit shall be stayed for 90 days while the City and Applicant determined if alternatives exist to salvage the building. However, the 90-day stay was effectively waived by the Council and the Applicant

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 agreeing to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2. As such, the Council authorized issuance of the Demolition Permit subject to the condition that any site development or building permit issued for new construction on the subject property shall require compliance with CUL-1 and CUL-2 and adopted the ISMND and via Resolution Number 22-XXXX; this decision reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

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

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 and City Council 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 6

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

May 11, 2022
Mayor Brown and Members of the City Council
c/o
Michelle Irace
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
RE: MARKET VIABILITY - 101 South Main Street, Ukiah
Dear Mayor Brown and the Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your time and consideration on May 4 and your future time and consideration on May 18. Ukiah City Code Section 3016 states the following regarding Market Viability should the council determine that the structure meets one of the three criteria to determine demolition set forth in the same code section:
“2. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present evidence that a viable market does not exist for the building, taking into account the condition of the building, the probable cost to put the building into marketable condition, and the uses of the property allowed under existing or probable future zoning regulations. The city council shall consider such evidence offered by the applicant and any other information presented at the meeting by any interested party or by staff, to determine whether or not a viable market exists. "Viable market" means that it is reasonably likely that the building could be sold within a commercially reasonable period of time for more than the seller would be required to invest in the purchase of the property and preparing the property for sale, or that the property could produce a reasonable return on the amount of money it would take to purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes. "Reasonable return" means the average rate of return on real estate investments in the Ukiah Valley.”
In my letter dated December 10, 2021, I outlined comparable market data as well as included letters from two reputable builders regarding the cost of bringing the building to current code. It is clear, without question, based on that information that a viable market does not exist to bring the building to current code.

On May 4, Councilman Crane asked if had explored other options to in addition to basically building a new building inside the existing walls as both contractors referenced. After reviewing the code and the outcome of the previous board meeting, I have explored what it would look like to fix the building up enough to get the rent to market rate and if that would provide a reasonable return on the amount of money it

would take to purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes. For the purposes of this letter, lets call this “average” condition versus the “fully up to code” condition we have already analyzed. I purchased the property for $420,000 in January 2016. Attached (Exhibit A) you will find market stats for sold commercial and residential income in 2016 and 2021 that shows a median price of $425,000 in 2016 and $518,000 in 2021. Based on that data that market has appreciated 21.88% from 2016 to 2021, which if applied to my purchase price would equal a purchase price today of $511,896.

I have also included all market data available through CoStar, the leading investment real estate data company, for Ukiah real estate investment sales in the past two years for which they have the income and expense data which that shows an average Capitalization Rate of 5.48% (Exhibit B).

Additionally, attached you will find an estimate from a reputable, licensed contractor for what it would take to get the subject property to the condition to obtain market rent which in his estimation is approximately $603,680. For the purposes of this analysis, I have removed his 10% contingency and will evaluate it using $548,880. The contractor, nor I, believe we could do that much work without having to bring the building all the way to current code, but for the sake of this viability analysis, we can assume there is a way to complete these repairs and only these repairs.

Lastly, attached you will find an independent Appraisal from April 26, 2022 on 101 North State Street (Exhibit D). 101 North State Street is currently my office that is diagonally across the street from the subject property. I have included it as it contains an exorbitant amount of market data from a Certified MAI appraiser on a building that is extremely similar to what the 101 South Main could be if we explored the additional option of what it would look like to repair the subject property enough to get it to market rent. This appraisal also contains information on the appraisers opinion of reasonable return in the market at 6% and a valuation of $160/SF for a building in that condition.

If we take this data and apply it to the market viability methods set forth in Section 2016 we have the mathematical analysis that follows on the next page (Figure 1). Depending on if we use my purchase price in 2016 or that number plus market appreciation, the return would be 3.03% to 3.32% when the market is at 5.48% to 6.00% and if it were to sell, I would lose $456,880 to $548,776. As you can clearly see, whether we bring the existing building up to current code or just get it to average condition, it is NOT, as stated in the City Code, “reasonably likely that the building could be sold within a commercially reasonable period of time for more than the seller would be required to invest in the purchase of the property and preparing the property for sale, or that the property could produce a reasonable return on the amount of money it would take to purchase the property and prepare the building for income producing purposes.” If the Council should determine that a viable market does not exist and, therefore, we continue forward with the demolition permit, I would like to propose that such a permit includes a condition that the history of the building shall be honored in any new building

erected there by using some of the existing siding as architectural and/or design elements similar to how the Savings Bank of Mendocino County did at 200 North School Street.

I am passionate about improving downtown Ukiah and building a strong local community. I believe with everyone ounce of my being that we can do those things and honor our history at the same time.

Sincerely,
Todd Schapmire Jr.

Figure 1.

Purchase Price $420,000.00 $511,896.00
Cost to Improve $548,880.00 $548,880.00
Total Investment $968,880.00 $1,060,776.00
$1.25/SF Modified Gross 3,200 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Expense Ratio 33% $1,318.00 $1,318.00
Net Income Monthly $2,682.00 $2,682.00
Annual Income $32,184.00 $32,184.00
Return 3.32% 3.03%
Sales Price $160.00 $512,000.00 $512,000.00
Net Gain (Loss) ($456,880.00) ($548,776.00)

EXHIBIT A

 











 !
"#$
%&%'"
() (*)*++*)
+ )
,
(,**-
./0/12/1304.566078 971/:710 ;7<=:7/8>8=:2?@AABCDEFGHFGBIJBKELBMNEFGOMD@AB91/8PQEFR ./0/52?G@KBLSTUTUVWTXN@TVUYTUVWTXZ [12/1\]./0/52:2 ^3/1_:;:\`1\] 94<2:` a/b:7 ></04 W WVcW Vc ^]]7:]0/:./0/12/132 d1\1656^_:70]: d:`10\ d0e1656></fg04f HhiFCBjBBN TITkWlIVcYVIkTmmlIWWW nooC@pq@NHErBnDCBKWsTTWsctWsYWcsmW nooC@pq@NHErBHhjNtIcmVYVIWVlTYIWXlYttITVt uBFCviEGNw WTmXXTmctTmml xCEyEMFGzCEDB {V{XlcIWYc{tckIWWW{kIWWWIWWW xCEyEMFGzCEDBzBCHhsjNs{kTsWV{TXmsTV{TtWsWk{YVWslc q@NHErBxCEyEMFGzBCnDCB{kscT{TIcYWIcXmscT{TItXVImlcslt{YIlWWIWWWsWW ?G@KBLzCEDB {VkWIWWW{XtcIklk{tVkIWWW{tIYckIWWW{TcItltIlWW ?G@KBLzCEDBzBCHhsjNs{ttsXt{TkYsVk{TVcsYl{YTWsWW q@NHErB?G@KBLzCEDBzBCnDCB{VtlIXYYsVX{TIXXWIXklscX{TItctIWmmsTt{YIkcTItVlskc |x} TmmmcVTl ?|x} TmmmcVTl ~€‚ƒ€„ †‡ˆ‰†Š„‹
ˆ‰
Œ†‡ŽƒˆŒ
ˆ„
‡ˆ
„‹‘€
‘€ƒŒˆ’
ˆ„
‡ˆ
„‹“€‡”†Š•ŒŠ†‘€ƒŒˆ€ŠŒŒ–‚ƒŒ
—ad./0/12/132˜<794<2:`[12/1\]2 ™<˜[12/1\]2 š<˜></04.;ša; W›YW|FœK YTTmYsVW YT›XW|FœK cVkmksmm Page 368 of 537  











 !
"#$
%&%'"
() (*)*++*)
+ )
,
(,**-
./012342563 7/08/49:;<7=< >?@ABCDEF G??H>AI>J A?@?HBCDEF K?KLGIJH ?HBMCDEF ?BGNLGINL OPQDRFSTUVWDXVFHN?BB?HJIHG YZ=[;4942342\30/]Y:/3^_12342563 ./012342563 7/08/49:;<7=< B@GBCDEF G??I??AGIHB G?@>BCDEF NHJIAGAJIAA >?@ABCDEF G??I??H>AI>J A?@?HBCDEF K?KIL?LGIJH ?HBMCDEF ?BGNIBKLGINL OPQDRFSTUVWDXVFHN?BB?HJIHG OP``abcDdefWV ghVDRiFQDQV
jcPkVljWfeDWElNBN@JNB@ALJJaVbPk`DWElNBN@JA?@BJNB mnnfbVlNBN@JA?@BJNB ieDfRlQP``FbcDdefWVoXeDfRIbPe pfblB?K?K?AJmnnfbVpfbIlB?NAJAJB  qknPWeDQfPkcDFkPQrVVkUVWfnfV`sfFkPQXtDWDkQVV`sDk`fFFtruVbQQPbcDkXVITkEPnnVWPnbPedVkFDQfPkfFeD`V VvbRtFfUVREQPwWPxVWjDWQfbfdDkQFPnQcVypazcVWVQcVFtruVbQRfFQfkXfFnfRV`I {PdEWfXcQ|HBHHwDETWVDhVDRiFQDQVqknPWeDQfPkaVWUfbVFsqkbITRRWfXcQFWVFVWUV`I {PdEWfXcQ|HBHHhDdDQQPkf{PWdPWDQfPkITRRWfXcQFWVFVWUV`I }IaIjDQVkQ>sA?BsBKJ ~VkVWDQV`lJS??SHBHH?BlGKjy











 !"
#$%
&'&(#
)* )+*+

+*
*
,
),++-
./0/12/1304.566078 971/:710 ;7<=:7/8>8=:2?@AABCDEFGHFGBIJBKELBMNEFGOMD@AB91/8PQEFR ./0/52?G@KBLSTUTUVWVTN@TVUXTUVWVTY Z12/1[\./0/52:2 ]3/1^:;:[_1[\ 94<2:_ `/a:7 ></04 W WVbW Vb ]\\7:\0/:./0/12/132 c1[1656]^:70\: c:_10[ c0d1656></ef04e HghFCBiBBN jWWkIbkkTIjWWXbIXWV lmmC@no@NHEpBlDCBKWqWjWqXbWqVWTqbX lmmC@no@NHEpBHgiNXIrksTsIVbbjIjTVbkIXkt uBFCvhEGNw WTtbXTtbjVWWX xCEyEMFGzCEDB {VkWIWWW{jrVIWbr{kVkIWWW{rIsbkIWWW xCEyEMFGzCEDBzBCHgqiNq{TWWqrW{VTTqkW{TXjqsT{XTVqkW o@NHEpBxCEyEMFGzBClDCB{ksrIkVWqXT{VIjbkITXWqWW{VIrbkIWWWqWW{TVIkrTITrkqjX ?G@KBLzCEDB {VkWIWWW{bjVIsXb{kTjIWWW{rIrWWIWWW{VTITXTIVWW ?G@KBLzCEDBzBCHgqiNq{bkqXW{VWTqTW{TkTqXt{XTVqkW o@NHEpB?G@KBLzCEDBzBClDCB{ksrIkVWqXT{VIbWsIrbsqVT{VIXtVIsXtqXr{TWItWVIsWrqTb |x} VTVTstkrT ?|x} VTVTstkrT ~€‚ƒ€„ †‡ˆ‰†Š„‹
ˆ‰
Œ†‡ŽƒˆŒ
ˆ„
‡ˆ
„‹‘€
‘€ƒŒˆ’
ˆ„
‡ˆ
„‹“€‡”†Š•ŒŠ†‘€ƒŒˆ€ŠŒŒ–‚ƒŒ
—`c./0/12/132˜<794<2:_Z12/1[\2 ™<˜Z12/1[\2 š<˜></04.;š`; W›XW|FœK sVVtbqXj XT›sW|FœK kTjttqsj Page 370 of 537 









 !"
#$%
&'&(#
)* )+*+

+*
*
,
),++-
./012342563 7/08/49:;<7=< >?@ABCDEF G?HAIJH> A?@?KBCDEF ? IALJ?K ?KBMCDEF ?BINHNJNA OPQDRFSTUVWDXVFKN?BBALJGN YZ=[;4942342\30/]Y:/3^_12342563 ./012342563 7/08/49:;<7=< B@IBCDEF >KKJKKANJIH I?@>BCDEF G?HJG AJ>H >?@ABCDEF HJG IJH> A?@?KBCDEF ?IJNBALJ?K ?KBMCDEF ?BINJBLHNJNA OPQDRFSTUVWDXVFKN?BBALJGN OP``abcDdefWV ghVDRiFQDQV
jcPkVljWfeDWElNBN@GNB@AHGGaVbPk`DWElNBN@GA?@BGNB mnnfbVlNBN@GA?@BGNB ieDfRlQP``FbcDdefWVoXeDfRJbPe pfblB?L?L?AGmnnfbVpfbJlB?NAGAGB  qknPWeDQfPkcDFkPQrVVkUVWfnfV`sfFkPQXtDWDkQVV`sDk`fFFtruVbQQPbcDkXVJTkEPnnVWPnbPedVkFDQfPkfFeD`V VvbRtFfUVREQPwWPxVWjDWQfbfdDkQFPnQcVypazcVWVQcVFtruVbQRfFQfkXfFnfRV`J {PdEWfXcQ|KBKKwDETWVDhVDRiFQDQVqknPWeDQfPkaVWUfbVFsqkbJTRRWfXcQFWVFVWUV`J {PdEWfXcQ|KBKKhDdDQQPkf{PWdPWDQfPkJTRRWfXcQFWVFVWUV`J }JaJjDQVkQ>sA?BsBLG ~VkVWDQV`lGS??SKBKK?BlI>jy

EXHIBIT B

1 1590 N Bush St Ukiah Sold: $1,510,000 25,265 SF MultiFamily/Apartments 2 705 El Rio St Ukiah 4,000 SF Multi-Family/Apartments Sold: $669,000 3 250 Ford Rd Ukiah Sold: $1,125,000 ($131.58/SF) 8,550 SF General Retail/Auto Repair
4 376 E Gobbi St Ukiah 5,857 SF Class C Office Sold: $1,200,000 ($204.88/SF) 5 246 Hospital Dr Ukiah 3,312 SF Class C Office/Medical Sold: $865,000 ($261.17/SF) 6 915 S Oak St Ukiah Sold: $2,200,000 ($183,333/Unit) 25,481 SF MultiFamily/Apartments 7 102 S State St Ukiah Sold: $1,245,000 ($111.70/SF) 11,146 SF General Retail/Storefront Retail/Office
8 116 S State St Ukiah Sold: $612,500 ($122.50/SF) 5,000 SF Class C Office/Loft/Creative Space
9 1450 S State St Ukiah Sold: $4,400,000 ($133,333/Unit) 37,302 SF MultiFamily/Apartments 10 430 Talmage Rd Ukiah 9,420 SF Multi-Family/Apartments Sold: $1,415,000 ($83,235/Unit) 11 905 Waugh Ln Ukiah Sold: $1,650,000 ($183,333/Unit) 16,200 SF MultiFamily/Apartments Address City Property Info Sale Info
All information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. © 2022 CoStar Group - Licensed to W Real Estate - 470290. 5/11/2022

Sale Price 3
RBA
Price per SF
Actual Cap Rate
Days on Market
Sale Price to Asking Price Ratio 86.93%
$612,500
3,312 SF
$122.50

4.90%
43 $892,500
4,723 SF
$188.97

4.91%
113

88.84%
$865,000
5,000 SF
$204.88

4.91%
113

88.84%
$1,200,000
5,857 SF
$261.17

4.92%
183

90.74%
3 3
2 2
2 Office
Sale Price 2
Center Size
Price per SF
Actual Cap Rate
Days on Market
Sale Price to Asking Price Ratio 93.75%
$1,125,000
8,550 SF
$111.70

5.56%
271
$1,185,000
9,848 SF
$120.33

5.87%
271

93.75%
$1,185,000
9,848 SF
$121.64

5.87%
271

93.75%
$1,245,000
11,146 SF
$131.58

6.17%
271

93.75%
2 2
2 1
1 General Retail
Sale Price 6
Building Size
Price per SF
Actual Cap Rate
Days on Market
Sale Price to Asking Price Ratio 83.48%
$669,000
4,000 SF
$59.77

4.96%
69 $1,974,000
19,611 SF
$100.66

5.55%
101

93.81%
$1,580,000
20,732 SF
$109.91

5.01%
104

95.10%
$4,400,000
37,302 SF
$167.25

6.80%
134
100.67%
6 6
5 5
5 Multi-Family
Gross Income Multiplier
Gross Rent Multiplier
# of Units
Price per Unit $83,235
-
-
9 -
-
16 $137,963
-
-
12 $158,333
-
-
33 $183,333
-
-
5 4
Totals
Sold Transactions Total Sales Volume: $16,891,500 Total Sales Transactions: 11 Survey Criteria
basic criteria: Sale Date - from 5/12/2020; Sale Status - Sold, Under Contract/Pending; Return and Search on Portfolio Sales as Individual Properties - Yes; Exclude Non-Arms Length Comps - Yes geography criteria: City - Ukiah, CA
Comps Statistics
Low Average Median High Count
Quick Stats Report
All information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. © 2022 CoStar Group - Licensed to W Real Estate - 470290. 5/11/2022

Dollar Volume # of Transactions
Cap Rate Average Price Per SF
Legend:

Current Survey
Sold Transactions 11
$16,891,500
Number of Transactions
Total Dollar Volume
151,533

6.57 Total Bldg Square Feet
Total Land in Acres
286,189
81 Total Land in SF
Total Units
$1,535,591
13,776
Average Price
Average Number of SF
$111.47
$122.50
Average Price Per Bldg SF
Median Price Per SF

0.60 26,017
Average Number of Acres
Average Number of SF(Land)
$137,963
$151,000
Average Price Per Unit
Median Price Per Unit
16 5.48%
Average Number of Units
Actual Cap Rate
Sold
Transactions
Average GRM -
Average GIM -
Time Interval - Quarterly
Report Time Frame: 4/1/2020 - 5/11/2022
Sale Date: from 5/12/2020
Survey Criteria
basic criteria: Sale Date - from 5/12/2020; Sale Status - Sold, Under Contract/Pending; Return and Search on Portfolio Sales as Individual Properties - Yes; Exclude Non-Arms Length Comps - Yes geography criteria: City - Ukiah, CA
Trend Report
All information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. © 2022 CoStar Group - Licensed to W Real Estate - 470290. 5/11/2022

Trend Report
Sold Transaction Sold Transaction
2Q20 04/1-6/30/20 4Q20 10/1-12/31/20
Number of Transactions
Total Dollar Volume
Total Bldg Square Feet
Total Land in Acres
Total Land in SF
Total Units
Average Price
Average Number of SF
Average Price Per Bldg SF
Median Price Per SF
Average Number of Acres
Average Number of SF(Land)
Average Price Per Unit
Median Price Per Unit
Average Number of Units
Actual Cap Rate
Average GRM
Average GIM
3Q20 07/1-9/30/20 1Q21 01/1-3/31/21
Sold Transaction Sold Transaction
1 $1,200,000
5,857

0.47 20,473
-
$1,200,000
5,857
$204.88
$204.88

0.47 20,473
-
-
-

4.90%
-
-
2 $3,065,000
25,620

1.67 72,745
26 $1,532,500
12,810
$119.63
$126.03

0.84 36,373
$117,885
$133,284
13 5.88%
-
-
1 $612,500
5,000

0.12 5,227
-
$612,500
5,000
$122.50
$122.50

0.12 5,227
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 $1,125,000
8,550

0.95 41,382
-
$1,125,000
8,550
$131.58
$131.58

0.95 41,382
-
-
-

5.56%
-
-
Sold Transaction
2Q21 04/1-6/30/21
Number of Transactions
Total Dollar Volume
Total Bldg Square Feet
Total Land in Acres
Total Land in SF
Total Units
Average Price
Average Number of SF
Average Price Per Bldg SF
Median Price Per SF
Average Number of Acres
Average Number of SF(Land)
Average Price Per Unit
Median Price Per Unit
Average Number of Units
Actual Cap Rate
Average GRM
Average GIM
4Q21 10/1-12/31/21
Sold Transaction
3 $7,845,000
73,929

2.41 104,980
45 $2,615,000
24,643
$106.12
$111.70

0.80 34,993
$146,667
$158,333
23 5.72%
-
-
3 $3,044,000
32,577

0.95 41,382
10 $1,014,667
10,859
$93.44
$167.25

0.32 13,794
$151,000
$151,000
10 4.96%
-
-
All information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. © 2022 CoStar Group - Licensed to W Real Estate - 470290. 5/11/2022

EXHIBIT C

Project: 101 S. Main Street
Ukiah, CA
Date: 5/13/2022 WESTERN BUILDERS
Item Description Qu. Unit Lab. Mat. Sub. Total
1 Site ADA improvements 1 LS 0 0 35000 35000
0 2 Interior demolition 3200 SF 0 0 12 38400
0 3 New HVAC (Title 24 compliant) 3200 SF 0 0 47 150400 0 4 Roof 3200 SF 0 0 25 80000
Total Owner's Budget $ 303,800
Item Description Qu. Unit Lab. Mat. Sub. Total
Interior sheetrock, finish & paint 1 LS 0 0 30000 30000 New ADA compliant restrooms 1 LS 0 0 50000 50000
Window & doors 1 LS 0 0 20000 20000
Flooring 1 LS 0 0 32000 32000
Storage/ Office/ Breakroom 1 LS 0 0 50000 50000
Electrical service 1 LS 0 0 35000 35000
Plumbing upgrades 1 LS 0 0 10000 10000
Architects, engineers, consultants, permits, fees, etc. 1 ALL 0 0 150000 150000 Total Tenant Budget $ 245,000
Contingency @ 10% $ 54,880
Total Project $ 603,680
* Improvements may trigger additional repairs and structural upgrades required by code Exclusions:

Off site improvements
Building Shell & Site Improvements
Tenant Improvements

EXHIBIT D

An Appraisal Report
of
A Single- tenant Office Building
located in
Ukiah, California
Effective date of report: April 28, 2022
Effective date of value: April 26, 2022
for
Appraisal Dept.
c/o Michael Webster, MAI
Summit State Bank
500 Bicentennial Way, Ste. 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Keith Sablik, MAI
Certified General Appraiser
203 Photinia Place
Petaluma, CA 94952
707) 559- 5551
101 N State St

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 1
April 28, 2022
Appraisal Dept.
c/o Michael Webster, MAI
Summit State Bank
500 Bicentennial Way, Ste. 100
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Re: 101 N State St
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Mr. Webster:

Per your request dated March 25, 2022, and as required by Regulation No. 1 of the Appraisal Institute, I have made the necessary inspection and analysis to appraise the above referenced property. The attached report provides essential data and detailed reasoning employed in reaching my opinion of value
The purpose of the following report is to develop an opinion of market value of the fee simple interest in the property, as-improved, as of April 26, 2022. The intended use of the report is for underwriting purposes in conjunction with a potential loan on the property. The intended user and client of the report is Summit State Bank. This report is not intended for any other use or user.

The property being appraised is an 18,334-sf (0.42-acre) commercially-zoned parcel improved with an average quality/ appeal, 4,541- sf, single- tenant office building located within the incorporated city of Ukiah, in Mendocino County, California.

The value reported is qualified by certain definitions, limiting conditions, and certifications that are set forth in the attached report. The analysis contained in the report that follows is presented as a summary Appraisal Report.

Based on my analysis, the opinion of market value of the subject property, as set forth, documented, and qualified in the attached report under conditions prevailing on April 26, 2022, is:

SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
725,000)
It has been a pleasure doing business with you. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (707) 559-5551.

Respectfully submitted,
Keith Sablik, MAI
Certified General Appraisal
CA Lic # AG008653

2 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS 3
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL 5
INTENDED USE and USER 5
INTEREST APPRAISED 5
SCOPE OF WORK 6
DEFINITION OF VALUE 7
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 8

IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Location 12
Statement of Ownership/Property History 12
Legal Description 12
Tax and Assessment Data 13
Marketing and Exposure Time 14
AREA DESCRIPTION 15
CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION 22
SITE DESCRIPTION 27
Zoning and Land Use 29
Plat Map 33
IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION 34
Subject Sketch 35
MARKET ANALYSIS 38
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS 43
As-If Vacant 44
As Improved 45
METHODS OF VALUATION 46
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 47
Income Data and Ratios 57
INCOME APPROACH 58
Comparable Lease Analysis 59
Expense Analysis 67
Reconstructed Operating Statement 69
RECONCILIATION 70
CERTIFICATION 71
ADDENDA:

Engagement Letter 73
Preliminary Title Report 77
Subject Photographs 85
Environmental Questionnaire 93
Insurable Value 100
Appraiser Qualifications 102

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 3

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
Assessor’ s Parcel Number 002- 228- 05
Street Address 101 N State St
Ukiah, CA 95482
County Mendocino
Census Tract Number 116. 00
Client Summit State Bank
Owner/ Borrower North State Partners, LLC
Occupant Owner- occupied ( dba W Real Estate)
Site Area 18,334 sf (0.42 acre)
Year Built Circa 1950s
Gross Building Area 4,541 sf
Improvements
Average quality & appeal, two-story, single-tenant office building with a gross building area of 4,541 sf, in good condition.

General Plan Land Use Commercial
Zoning DC: Downtown Core Zone
Flood Hazard
FEMA map reference # 06045C1514F, Zone X (areas
determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain), dated 06/02/2011
Earthquake Hazard
Per the California Dept. of Conservation’ s California
Geological Survey, the property is situated in the Ukiah Quadrangle, but is not located on a known fault.

Environmental Hazard
Per the State Water Resource Control Board’ s
Geotracker website, there are 17 environmental hazard
sites identified within a 1,000’ radius of the subject.

Sixteen are marked completed- case closed; one is open
under remediation. There are no known or noted
environmental hazards at the property.

4 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
Present Use Single-tenant office building
Highest and Best Use Single-tenant office building
Property Rights Appraised Fee Simple
Extraordinary Assumptions N/A
Hypothetical Conditions N/A

VALUE INDICATORS
Indicated Value via Sales Comparison Approach $ 725,000 Indicated Value via Income Approach $ 725, 000
Opinion of Value $ 725, 000
Insurable Value $ 725, 000
Date of Property Inspection April 26, 2022
Date of Value Conclusion April 26, 2022
Date of Appraisal Report April 28, 2022

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 5

PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the property described hereinafter, subject to the Limiting Conditions later set forth, as of April 26, 2022. Evaluation of the property is made as-improved.

This is an Appraisal Report as defined by Standards Rule 2.2 in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ( USPAP) effective January 01, 2020 through December 31, 2022.

INTENDED USE and USER OF THE APPRAISAL
The intended use of the report is for underwriting purposes in conjunction with a potential loan on the property. The intended user and client of the report is Summit State Bank. This report is not intended for any other use or user.

INTEREST APPRAISED
The property interest(s) appraised are identified below:

A fee simple estate is defined as follows:

Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.

A leased fee estate is defined as follows:

An ownership interest held by a landlord with the right of use and occupancy conveyed by lease to others. The rights of the lessor ( the leased fee owner) and the leased fee are specified by contract terms contained within the lease.

A leasehold estate is defined as follows:

The interest held by the lessee ( the tenant or renter) through a lease conveying the rights of use and occupancy for a stated term under certain conditions.

Personal property is defined as follows:

Identifiable portable and tangible objects that are considered by the general public to be personal”, e.g., furnishings, artwork, antiques, gems and jewelry, collectibles, machinery and equipment; all property that is not classified as real estate. Personal property includes movable items that are not permanently affixed to, and part of, the real estate.

Taken from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th Edition, 2002

6 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

SCOPE OF WORK
The following steps were followed in arriving at the estimate of value included in the appraisal report of the subject property:

After receiving the assignment, a preliminary search of all available resources was made to determine market trends. A study was made of the area, community, and neighborhood and other significant factors pertinent to the subject property.

A physical inspection of the property was performed on April 26, 2022.

Although due diligence was exercised while at the subject property, the appraiser is not an expert in such matters as hazardous waste, soil contamination, etc., and no warranty is given or implied as to these or other elements outside of analysis of market data. Inspections by various professionals within these fields may be recommended with the final estimate of market value subject to their findings.

The appraiser collected data from a variety of sources, including the property owner, owner’ s representative, BAREIS ( North Bay Multiple Listing Service), county assessor' s office, real estate brokers, and/ or the appraiser' s own files.

The highest and best use was then determined considering zoning, the general plan, economic considerations, and surrounding land use.

A more detailed review of the collected data was then performed with the most relevant factors extracted and considered. Comparable properties were examined and, when possible, confirmed with parties involved with the transactions. Additionally, a physical inspection of the front- exteriors of the properties was also performed. All appropriate data was then analyzed to arrive at a conclusion of value.

The appraisal report was prepared in accordance with standards dictated by the Appraisal Foundation in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices ( USPAP), as well as in accordance with Title XI of FIRREA. The intent of the report is to lead the reader systematically through the appraisal process leading to conclusions similar to those of the appraiser.

The report is intended to comply with 1) Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines; and 2) USPAP.

The appraiser did not take into consideration any prohibited basis, such as race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin, in developing and reporting the appraisal.

Delivery of the appraisal report to the client constituted the completion of the assignment.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 7

DEFINITION OF VALUE
Market Value1 is defined as follows:

Market value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1) Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;
3) A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4) Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
5) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.
1 Code of Federal Regulations, revised January 01, 2009: Title 12-Banks and Banking, Chapter V-Office of Thrift Supervision, Department of the Treasury, Part-(Appraisals) 564. 2g, including verbatim the grammatical and punctuation errors.

8 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Assumptions and Limitations of Appraisal
This appraisal is for no other purpose than property valuation, and the appraiser is neither qualified nor attempting to go beyond that narrow scope. The reader should be aware that there are also inherent limitations to the accuracy of the information and analyses contained in the appraisal. Before making any decisions based on the information and analyses contained in this report, it is important to read this entire section to understand these limitations.

Appraisal is Not a Survey
It is assumed that the utilization of the land improvements is within the boundaries of the property lines of the property described and that there are not encroachments or easements unless noted within the report.

No survey of the property has been made by the appraiser and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Any maps, plat maps, or drawings reproduced and included in this report are intended only for the purpose of showing area relationships. The reliability of the information contained on any such map or drawing is assumed by the appraiser and cannot be guaranteed to be accurate. A surveyor should be consulted if there are any concerns about boundaries, setbacks, encroachments, easements, or other survey matters.

Legal Aspects of the Appraisal
No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature that affect title to the property, boundaries, encumbrances, easements, or other defects of title. The appraiser was not provided with an abstract of title for the property being appraised and the appraiser has not made an examination of one.

It is assumed that the real property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless non-compliance is stated. A comprehensive examination of laws and regulations affecting the subject property was not performed for this appraisal.

It is assumed that all applicable zoning, use regulations, and restrictions have been complied with, unless stated otherwise. Information and analyses shown in this report concerning these items is based only on a preliminary investigation. Any questions should be addressed to local zoning or land use officials or other qualified individuals.

It is assumed that all required licenses, permits, or other necessary documentation from the appropriate authority has been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate is based. If any questions arise concerning any area stated in this paragraph, a qualified individual should be consulted.

All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitude have been disregarded unless so stated within the report. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership and competent management.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 9

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Use and Extent of This Appraisal
The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court for any reason related to this appraisal unless prior arrangements have been made.

Possession of this report, or copy thereof, does not presume right of publication. The report may not be used by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the prior written consent of the appraiser, and only with proper written approval from the appraiser and only in its entirety.

Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy hereof, shall be conveyed or utilized for advertising purposes, public relations, new sales, or any other media without the prior written consent of the appraiser.

Use of this report is subject to the requirement of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representative.

Acceptance and/ or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and general limiting conditions.

Appraisal Is Not an Engineering or Property Inspection Report No environmental impact studies were provided in conjunction with this report. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, sub-soil, or structures that would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions, or for the engineering that may be required to discover such factors. Since no engineering tests were made, no liability is assumed for soil conditions. Sub- surface rights ( mineral and oil) were not considered in making this appraisal.

Wells and septic systems, if any, are assumed to be in good working condition and of sufficient size and capacity for the stated highest and best use.

The appraiser is not an environmental expert and does not have the expertise necessary to determine the existence of environmental hazards such as the presence of toxic wastes, asbestos, or hazardous building material, or any other environmental hazards noted on the subject or surrounding properties. If the appraiser has any knowledge of any problems of this nature which would create a significant problem, they are disclosed in this report.

Nondisclosure should not, however, be taken as an indication that such a problem does not exist; an expert in the field should be consulted if any interested party has questions on environmental factors.

10 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
No chemical or scientific tests were performed by the appraiser on the subject property; it is assumed that the air, water, ground, and general environment associated with the property, present no physical or health hazard of any kind unless otherwise noted in the body of the appraisal report. It is further assumed that the subject does not contain any type of dump site and that there are no underground tanks leaking toxic or hazardous chemicals into the groundwater or environment unless otherwise noted in the report.

Appraisal Is Made Under Conditions of Uncertainty with Limited Data As evident from the limitations presented, above, this appraisal has been performed with a limited amount of data. Data limitations result from a lack of certain areas of expertise by the appraiser, the inability of the appraiser to view certain portions of the property, the inherent limitations of relying upon information provided by others, etc.

Before relying on any statement made in this appraisal report, concerned parties should contact the appraiser for the exact extent of data collection on any point which they believe to be important to decision making.

Information provided by local sources, such as government agencies, financial institutions, accountants, attorneys, and others, is assumed to be true, correct, and reliable. No responsibility for the accuracy of such information is assumed by the appraiser.

The comparable sales data relied upon in the appraisal is believed to be from reliable sources. Though all the comparables were examined, it was not possible to inspect them all in detail. The value conclusions are subject to the accuracy of said data.

Engineering analysis of the subject property was neither provided nor made as a part of this appraisal report.

All values shown in the appraisal report projections are based on the appraiser's analysis as of the date of the appraisal. The values may not be valid in other time periods or as conditions change.

Since projected mathematical models and other projections are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending upon evolving events, they are not represented as results that will actually be achieved.

This appraisal is an estimate of value based on an analysis of information known to the appraiser at the time the appraisal was made. The appraiser does not assume any responsibility for incorrect analysis because of incorrect or incomplete information.

Opinions and estimates expressed herein represent the appraiser' s best judgment but should not be construed as advice or recommendation to act.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 11

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Appraisal Report Limitations
Appraisal reports are technical documents addressed to the specific technical needs of the client. Casual readers should be cautioned about the limitations and possible misinterpretation of the information contained in this report and further understand that this report does not contain all of the information gleaned by the appraiser concerning the subject property or the real estate market. While no factors believed to be significant were knowingly withheld, the possibility exists that the appraiser may have information of significance to others; due to the appraiser’s limited acquaintance of the property and the appraiser’s specifically limited expertise, such information may not seem to be of import to the appraiser.

The appraiser should be contacted with any questions before this report is relied upon as a basis for decision making.

12 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Location
The subject property is located in the northern portion of the State of California, within the south-central portion of Mendocino County in the incorporated City of Ukiah. Specifically, it is a street- to-street parcel situated on the northeast corner of N State St & E Perkins St and the northwest corner of N Main St & E Perkins St, within the city’ s downtown core.

The subject is identified as assessor’ s parcel number 002- 228- 05 and is commonly referenced as 101 N State St, Ukiah, CA.

Statement of Ownership/Property History
According to a preliminary title report produced by First American Title Co. ( order # 4904- 6806326, dated March 23, 2022, at 7:30 a.m.), interest in the property is vested in:

TODD A. SCHAPMIRE, JR. AND RANDALL P. WALLER AND MARIO J. TAMO AND ANTHONY BENSHIRA, AS JOINT TENANTS, SUBJECT TO ITEM NO. 8
However, contrary to this, the parties cited above transferred title to North State Partners LLC on June 05, 2019. The partners of the LLC and the owners listed above are one and the same.

The property was purchased by the current owner on February 22, 2019 for $ 684, 500, 000, via document # 19- 02031. The property was not listed prior to the purchase.

Since its purchase, the owner has completed various updating of the building According to available records and data sources, there has been no other market activity or transfer of the property in the past five years.

Legal Description
See preliminary title report in attached addendum.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 13

IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Tax and Assessment Data
As result of the passage of California Proposition 13 (or the Jarvis-Gann Initiative) in 1978, real property taxes in the State of California are limited to 1% of market value, based upon the assessor' s market value estimate for the 1975 base year; unless there is a transfer of ownership, new construction, or the property is leased on a long- term basis. Whenever any of the foregoing occurs, the property is reassessed at full market value. If there is no reassessment, the assessed value is increased at 2% annually. Proposition 13 limits the annual real property taxes to 1% of the assessed value plus an amortized amount for voter approved bonded indebtedness.

The property resides within tax rate area 0030141 and has a current tax rate of 1.1470%.

Assessment on the property for the 2019/2020 tax year is as follows:

Source: Mendocino County Tax Collector’ s and Assessor’ s offices Taxes are typical and conforming to the subject’ s area and market segment. 2021 Assessed Values
AP N Land Improvements Fixtures P ersonal P rop. Total
002- 228- 05 $ 261, 382 $ 371, 790 $ 0 $ 0 $ 633, 172
2021 Taxes and Rate
AP N Variable Direct Total Tax Rate
002- 228- 05 $ 7,667. 71 $ 0.00 $ 7,667. 72 1.2110%

14 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY
Marketing Period and Exposure Time
The following definitions are taken from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th Edition, 2002.

Marketing Period

1. The time it takes an interest in real property to sell on the market sub- sequent to the date of an appraisal.

2. Reasonable marketing period is an estimate of the amount of time it might take to sell an interest in real property at its estimated market value during the period immediately after the effective date of the appraisal; the anticipated time required to expose the property to a pool of prospective purchasers and to allow appropriate time for negotiation, the exercise of due diligence, and the consummation of a sale at a price supportable by concurrent market conditions.

Assumptions are made that the property will be marketed through professionals experienced with the particular type of property and that all normal marketing tools will be employed during the listing period. Additionally, the property will be offered for sale at a reasonable value relative to its market value and that neither buyer nor seller are under any duress to execute the sale.

Exposure Time

1. The time a property remains on the market.

2. The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Exposure time is always presumed to occur prior to the effective date of the appraisal. The overall concept of reasonable exposure encompasses not only adequate, sufficient and reasonable time but also adequate, sufficient and reasonable effort. Exposure time is different for various types of real estate and value ranges and under various market conditions.

Listing periods for three properties utilized in the sales comparison approach ranged from 3 days up to 672 days, with an average time of 311 days or approximately 10.4 months on the market. A broader review of the market finds most properties in the region selling within a 3- to-9-month period.

Based upon this analysis, the exposure time for the property at the stated opinion of value is estimated between 3 and 9 months. Anticipating no major changes in market conditions over the next year, a similar time frame is estimated for the marketing period.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 15

AREA DESCRIPTION
Geography and Economics of Mendocino
County
Mendocino County is situated in the northwest
coastal region of California and is bounded by
Humboldt and Trinity Counties to the north;
Tehama, Glenn and Lake Counties to the east;
Sonoma County to the south; and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. Mendocino County is 100
miles north of San Francisco on the U.S.

Highway 101 corridor, and covers an area of
approximately 3,878 square miles. It ranks 15th
in size compared to the 58 counties in the
State of California, but falls to 37th rank when
relative populations of these counties are
compared. There are only four incorporated
cities ( towns) in the county, in order of size:

Ukiah, Fort Bragg, Willits, and Point Arena.

Approximately, 70% of the population lives in
the unincorporated areas of the county.

The headwaters of the Russian River are located in Mendocino County, and its rich bottomland supports many small and mostly organic farms that grow fruits and vegetables, while ranches raise sheep and cattle. Mendocino County offers a wide variety of topography, climate, and vegetation; from tidal flatlands of the coastline to rugged mountain terrain, with a number of fertile valleys and a large plain. The climate is considered mild with lows rarely dropping below freezing in the winter and highs in the summer average mid to high 90s.

The Coastal Mountain Range presents a significant geographic barrier, and divides the coastal and interior regions of the county. On the eastern side of the Coastal Mountain Range is Mendocino County’s interior, which consists of a series of deep valleys running north and south and contains the bulk of the county’s population.

Ukiah is the largest city and County seat. Mendocino College, with a 127-acre permanent campus, and an enrollment of +/- 5,000 students, is located 3 miles north of downtown Ukiah, and is a major employer for the area. Just east of Ukiah in the community of Talmage, is the 488- acre ' City of Ten Thousand Buddhas', one of the nation’ s largest Buddhist universities/ colonies. It is situated at the site of the former Mendocino State hospital.

16 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

AREA DESCRIPTION
The economic base of the region has been in transition for decades. The following table indicates some of the largest employers in Mendocino County (ranked by number of full-time employees):

County of Mendocino
Ukiah Unified School District
Mendocino College
Georgia Pacific West
Productive People Empl. Services
Retech
Mendocino Co. Office of Education
Rainbow Construction
Harwood Products Inc.

Mendocino Coast Hospital
City of Ukiah
Savings Bank of Mendocino County
AM&D
Howard Frank R. Memorial Hospital
Fetzer Vineyards
Source: Upstate California Economic Development Council Source: www. cityofukiah. com
The economy of Mendocino County has historically been centered on agriculture and resource extraction – primarily timber and fishing. However, both the timber and fishing industries have been in decline for several decades due to the over-extraction and consequent dwindling of these resources. Of the three dozen former mills in the county, only a handful remain open, and these are mainly remanufacturing mills that that turn sawn logs into molding and other products. The timber and fishing industries have been replaced with tourism within the county.

However, it is a cyclical industry that is dependent on worldwide economic conditions. Prior to the recession, the Transient Occupancy Tax ( TOT) collections for the county peaked in 2007-08 at $3,846,841. By 2009-10, they had fallen to $3,255,978 as the full impact of the recession took hold. Subsequent years have seen a steady growth leading to a 2018/2019 the last reported time period – Mendocino County Tax Collector) figure of $5,668,666.

Other visitor-serving businesses such as restaurants, gas stations, and entertainment venues are also trending upward. Indian casinos are another growing visitor- serving service. There are currently four along State Route 101, in or near Hopland, Redwood Valley, Willits and Laytonville.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 17

AREA DESCRIPTION
The table below reflects the change in average monthly industry-occupancy employment levels in the county between 2010 and 2020:

Mendocino County Employment by Industry
Source: State of California Employment Development Department Government employment is the largest single source of employment in the county, followed by retail trade, leisure/hospitality, and educational/health services. This highlights the shift away from manufacturing, which was once a major employer in the region. The county’s employment is now focused upon services with the public sector coming in as number one in employment.

Employment figures declined in all industries between 2019 and 2020, reflecting the on- set of the Covid- 19 pandemic in early 2020 and its devasting impact upon all sectors of employments, but most notably in Leisure & Hospitality, which was down 31.3%.

Industry 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2019 vs 2020 Farm 1,600 1,510 1,530 1,500 1,530 1,460 1,060 1,180 1,230 1,200 1,140 - 5.0% Mining, Logging and Construction 1,190 1,180 1,260 1,270 1,320 1,330 1,280 1,560 1,630 1,600 1,420 - 11. 3% Manufacturing 2,190 2,230 2,330 2,420 2,490 2,520 2,550 2,460 2,380 2,290 2,130 - 7.0% Wholesale Trade 670 690 720 810 830 730 810 800 780 740 720 - 2.7% Retail Trade 4,380 4,310 4,360 4,350 4,380 4,620 4,750 4,760 4,960 4,830 4,330 - 10.4% Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 570 580 610 650 650 680 770 760 770 800 750 - 6.3% Information 330 310 290 280 270 260 240 240 230 210 200 - 4.8% Financial Activities 1,160 1,060 1,080 1,040 1,050 1,040 1,030 1,070 1,090 1,060 1,020 - 3.8% Professional & Business Services 1,770 1,800 1,700 1,700 1,660 1,670 1,660 1,740 1,850 1,960 1,790 - 8.7% Educational & Health Services 3,730 3,860 5,060 5,480 5,570 5,490 5,720 5,790 5,830 5,890 5,570 - 5.4% Leisure & Hospitality 3,660 3,590 3,690 4,180 4,230 4,250 4,240 4,330 4,260 4,320 2,970 - 31.3% Other Services 730 730 750 760 770 780 790 820 770 730 610 - 16.4% Federal Government 330 290 290 330 260 270 270 260 270 270 290 7.4% State & Local Government 6,970 6,760 6,650 6,670 6,770 6,870 7,000 7,130 6,880 6,910 6,100 - 11. 7% Total: All Industries 29, 280 28, 900 30, 320 31, 440 31, 780 31, 970 32, 170 32, 900 32, 930 32, 810 29, 040 - 11. 5% Private 75. 1% 75. 6% 77. 1% 77. 7% 77. 9% 77. 7% 77. 4% 77. 5% 78. 3% 78. 1% 78. 0% Public 24. 9% 24. 4% 22. 9% 22. 3% 22. 1% 22. 3% 22. 6% 22. 5% 21. 7% 21. 9% 22. 0%

18 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

AREA DESCRIPTION
The table below reflects the historical labor force totals for Mendocino County since 2003:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
The data indicates a moderate annual decline in the total workforce over the past ten years.

As of 2019, Mendocino County’ s unemployment rate was 4.0%; down from a recent peak of

11.3% in 2010 and below its pre- recession low of 5.2% in 2006. This followed the general pattern observed within most counties in the state: a sharp increase in unemployment figures as the recession takes hold in late-2008, followed by steady improvement from 2011-onward.

Mendocino County’s rate of recovery, however, lagged those of the nine Bay Area counties, which benefited from much stronger job growth throughout multiple industries.

In April 2020, unemployment increased dramatically to 14.7% in the county ( 16.1% in California), reflecting the on- set of the covid- 19 pandemic and its devastating impact on shortterm unemployment figures due to government mandated business closures and shelter- inplace orders. By the end of 2020, unemployment had risen to an average rate of 8.9%. As businesses have been allowed to re-open on a restricted basis, the rate had fallen to 6.2% by 2021. It is likely that unemployment rates will remain above recent lows as long as some form of restrictions remain in place.

Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment
Unemployment
Rate
2003 45,310 42,190 3,120 6.9%
2004 44,033 41,198 2,835 6.4%
2005 43,926 41,389 2,537 5.8%
2006 43,351 41,097 2,254 5.2%
2007 43,179 40,804 2,375 5.5%
2008 43,287 40,321 2,966 6.9%
2009 43,325 38,878 4,447 10.3%
2010 43,347 38,461 4,886 11.3%
2011 42,755 38,077 4,678 10.9%
2012 42,776 38,623 4,153 9.7%
2013 43,497 40,126 3,371 7.7%
2014 41,000 38,160 2,840 6.9%
2015 40,207 37,853 2,354 5.9%
2016 39,644 37,555 2,089 5.3%
2017 39,628 37,842 1,786 4.5%
2018 39,715 38,151 1,564 3.9%
2019 38,934 37,388 1,546 4.0%
2020 37,015 33,723 3,292 8.9%
2021 36,920 34,622 2,298 6.2%

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 19

AREA DESCRIPTION
Demographics
Approximately 67% of the population lives in the unincorporated areas of the county. The 2000 Census saw a county population of 86,265. By January 01, 2021, this figure had increased to 86,669, representing a 0.5% increase, but a loss of 2.7% from 2017’ s peak of 89, 092. The declining population is mostly attributed to the stronger work force and employment opportunities found within the adjacent Bay Area region.

California Department of Finance: E-4 Population Estimates 2011- 2021, with 2010 Census Benchmark) The state’ s Dept. of Finance data indicates there were 85, 160 households in the county as of January 01, 2021. The median household income was $ 51,415 in 2019, with a cost- of-living index of 1116.9 ( above the U.S. average of 100), making it a notably more affordable environment than the Bay Area.

Housing
Housing in Mendocino County is predominantly detached single-family units, making up approximately 70% of the total stock. They include modern subdivisions, custom homes, and small and large acreage rural properties, such as ranch homes or cabins.

According to BAREIS ( Multiple Listing Service) statistics, the median value of single- family homes countywide in 2020 was approximately $ 637, 447 for a 1,687- sf, 3-bedroom/ 2-bathroom residence. Mobile homes account for approximately 13.5% of the housing stock. These dwellings are the preferred primary residence of many persons in the area due to their affordability and low maintenance. Multi-family housing is limited, accounting for 13% of the housing stock with most situated in the four incorporated communities. The county has ample vacant land that is planned for residential development; however, the rate of countywide residential growth is expected to remain moderate due to limited infrastructure of its communities and the availability of sewer and water services. Many of the unincorporated residential areas must rely on private water sources and septic systems, and natural gas is not available in the county.

COUNTY/ CITY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Mendocino County
Fort Bragg 7,278 7,285 7,327 7,564 7,633 7,672 7,449 7,540 7,494 7,451 7,409 Point Arena 448 448 450 446 444 448 437 438 430 438 435 Ukiah 15, 926 16, 027 16, 101 16, 170 16, 156 16, 186 15,889 16,081 15,942 15,951 15,526 Willits 4,879 4,878 4,904 4,868 4,860 4,879 5,092 5,133 5,107 5,065 5,040 Balance Of County 59, 181 59, 309 59, 711 59, 129 59, 070 59, 193 60,225 59,350 59,232 58,803 58,259 Incorporated 28, 531 28, 638 28, 782 29, 048 29, 093 29, 185 28,867 29,192 28,973 28,905 28,410 County Total 87, 712 87, 947 88, 493 88, 177 88, 163 88, 378 89,092 88,542 88,205 87,708 86,669

20 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

AREA DESCRIPTION
Transportation
Mendocino County is served by the major roadway U.S. Highway 101. Local bus service is provided by Mendocino Transit Authority, and regional service is provided by Golden Gate Transit system. Railway access in Mendocino County is currently not in service. The former Northwestern Pacific Rail line holdings, which shave historically served the area have been acquired by the State of California. Some 316 miles of rail right– of-way located in northern California are currently managed by the North Coast Railroad Authority ( NCRA), which was created in 1989. This agency has been under-funded since inception, and there is currently significant deferred maintenance to the railway lines. However, the California Transportation Commission recently approved funding as part of the $286 billion Transportation Equity Act approved by congress in 1985, to begin restoration work to the railroad line in phases with the eventual aim of providing a viable rail operation thru the southern portion of the rail line including portions of Mendocino County). Ukiah Municipal public airport currently offers no major carrier service, and it has been forced to restrict the scope of its activities due to recent construction of “ big box” retailers in the vicinity of established flight patterns. It is unlikely that major carrier service will be allowed at the current airport location, although there has been some discussion in local news services about re-locating the municipal airport to a location northeast of the current city limits.

Conclusion
Typical of most of California, the economic base of Mendocino County has recovered from the recent recession, whose lingering effects had put all sectors of the economy on hold for several years. Continued improvement in the economy will most likely continue the economic growth at both the local and regional level.

The attendant problems of growth, such as sewage collection, treatment, and disposal, water supply, and traffic congestion, are all matters currently being studied by local governmental agencies. Resolution of these infrastructure constraints will be determinative of future growth, both short- and long-term, within the county and its communities.
2020 Pandemic
An overriding issue to all of the aforementioned conditions is the current, on- going pandemic.

In early 2020, markets were upset by the on- set of the world- wide pandemic. Most communities and many industries were initially severely depressed by the evolving, on-going threat of the covid- 19 ( corona) virus pandemic and government- enacted mandates to curb transmission.

As vaccines became commonly- available by early 2021, easing of social- distancing mandates alleviated the financial distress amongst some, but not all industries; leaving many economies and markets in a potentially vulnerable state.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 21
AREA DESCRIPTION: Area Map

22 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

CITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
Geographically, Ukiah is situated in a small agricultural valley 614 feet above sea level. The town is located 110 miles North of San Francisco and 60 miles from the Mendocino coast.

Ukiah was incorporated in 1876. Ukiah has excellent recreation facilities including Lake Mendocino just to the north and Cow Mountain Recreation area to the west. In addition Ukiah has numerous city and regional parks.

Freeway mileage from Ukiah to:

San Francisco: 113 Eureka: 160
Santa Rosa: 62 Ft. Bragg: 60
Seattle: 754 Lakeport: 32
Willits: 25 Los Angeles: 520
Williams: 79 Sacramento: 148
Climate
Source: Ukiah Chamber of Commerce
Unlike many other cities close to the coast, Ukiah is relatively fog- free. This fact, coupled with warm days and cool evenings, gives Ukiah an ideal climate for those who want four seasons but don't want extreme temperatures. Summer temperatures are regularly in the mid-90s with cooling in the evenings. Winter temperatures are in the 50s with lows in the 30s-40s. Average total annual rainfall is approximately 38.5 inches a year.

Population
Ukiah has experienced slow population growth with only a 1% increase between 2004 and 2014. As of January 01, 2021, the population of Ukiah proper was 15,526. Like many communities throughout the region, this down from a peak of 16,081 in 2018, with the loss attributed to numerous wild-fires in recent years and a moderately-high affordability index.

According to the 2019 Census data, per capita income in the city was $28,282 with an average household income of $50,207. Approximately 21.7% of its population lived below the poverty level versus 15.3% statewide. As to higher education, 18.2% of the residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. As to age, 24.8% of the population is under 18 years versus

14.5% 65 years and over.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 23

CITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
Industry Employment
Industry employment in Ukiah and the surrounding area is mixed with government, retail & service, manufacturing, and timber industry workers. Agriculture also plays a role in the employment for the area; industries include wineries, vineyards, pear orchards and wood products. Ukiah is the largest producer of Bartlett pears in the world, and has large packing and export operations in support of this crop. The number of small non-agricultural types of manufacturers and service industries continue to rise while timber industry activities are in decline. As with many rural communities, State and local government agencies also constitute a significant part of local employment.

Housing
Overall, housing in the Ukiah area is mixed with older individual construction homes and newer suburban-type developments. As of January 01, 2021, there were 6,664 housing units in the city, of which 60% (4,023) were single-family residences ( both attached and detached), 441 were mobile homes, and the remainder comprised of multi-family residential properties. The housing vacancy rate at that time was 6.5% versus a countywide vacancy of 13.3%.

24 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

CITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
Neighborhood Description
North)
GoogleEarth, dated 08/ 17/ 2013. Keith Sablik, MAI)
The subject ( arrow) is located west of US 101 ( red line) in the heart of Ukiah’ s central business district ( A). Its immediate neighborhood is defined by the intersection of Perkins St and State St, radiating outward by one-block in all directions. Land use in the downtown core is comprised of approximately 50% retail, 25% office and 25% residential.

The city has maintained a small-town atmosphere highlighted by its traditional “ main” street corridor ( State St – yellow line). The downtown has many distinctive turn-of-the-century buildings which have been successfully converted into retail uses at street level and office/ studio space above. Perimeter uses west of the downtown are primarily single- family residences, while those to the east are a combination of commercial and light industrial uses.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 25

CITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
Most commercial activity is concentrated along State St and Perkins St. The former is the only major commercial corridor through the city. Within the downtown core, most uses range from small single-tenant structures to two-story multi-tenant buildings. Many were developed in the late- 1800s to early- 1900s and are of generally average to good- average quality. Design/ appeal varies from fair to good, with those that have retained their vintage architecture retaining the greatest appeal. Most properties display average maintenance levels.

In addition to the above, several small- to medium- size retail centers are clustered just west of the freeway, running the entire length of the city. These provide the major shopping opportunities for the local populace, as well as, surroundings area of Mendocino and Lake Counties. In general, the centers range from average to good-average quality and appeal, with a similar range of condition levels.

Light- industrial activity is largely concentrated west of the freeway and east of State St. In general, the segment is comprised of fair to average quality single- and multi- tenant properties developed from the mid- 1900s onward. Most are of fair- average design/ appeal and display average maintenance levels.

Overall, subject’s location has good appeal to the retail market due to the high visibility and strong cumulative attraction of the downtown core.

26 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St
CITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION: Location Map

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 27

SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Summary:

Assessor’ s Parcel Number 002-228-05
Street Address 101 N State St
Ukiah, CA 95482
Site Area 18,334 sf (0.42 acre)
Shape L-shaped
Topography Level
Street Frontage
40’ on the east side of N State St, 200’ on the north side of E Perkins St and approximately 77’ on the west side
of N Main St.

General Plan Land Use Commercial
Zoning DC: Downtown Core Zone
Flood Hazard
FEMA map reference # 06045C1514F, Zone X ( areas
determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain), dated 06/02/2011
Earthquake Hazard
Per the California Dept. of Conservation’ s California
Geological Survey, the property is situated in the Ukiah Quadrangle, but is not located on a known fault.

Environmental Hazard
Per the State Water Resource Control Board’ s
Geotracker website, there are 17 environmental hazard
sites identified within a 1,000’ radius of the subject.

Sixteen are marked completed- case closed; one is open
under remediation. There are no known or noted
environmental hazards at the property.

Utilities
Municipal water & sewer provided by the City of Ukiah;
gas & electricity provided by PG&E; trash collection by Waste Management; telecommunication services
provided by a variety of private carriers.

Drainage Appears adequate

28 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

SITE DESCRIPTION
Present Use Single-tenant office
Easements
An easement for underground communication facilities
is cited in the preliminary title report
After review of the title report, it is the appraiser’ s opinion there are no known or noted adverse
easements at the subject that would impact its use or
value.

Off –Site Improvements
Illuminated, asphalt streets w/ concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks
Soils No soils study has been reported; soils appear
adequate to support existing use; no soil contamination apparent from initial inspection.

Overview
The subject parcel is identified as APN: 002- 228- 05 and is commonly referenced as 101 N State St. It is a street- to- street parcel situated on the northeast corner of N State St & E Perkins St and the northwest corner of N Main St & E Perkins St, within the city’ s downtown core. State St is the city’ s primary north/ south commercial corridor, while Perkins St is the main east/west arterial roadway to and from the downtown and the freeway. Main St is a secondary north/south roadway. At the subject, all are fully improved 2-lane, asphalt streets with concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights. Unmetered, but timed parallel parking is allowed on State St and Main St. At the subject, there is no on-street parking along Perkins St.

The subject maintains 40’ on the east side of N State St, 200’ on the north side of E Perkins St and approximately 77’ on the west side of N Main St. Traffic volume at the subject is moderate along State St and Perkins St; light along Main St. Based upon its frontage and traffic volume, the subject has good visibility.

Per public records, this is an 18,334-sf (0.42-acre) parcel. It is an L-shaped corner lot with level topography throughout. Landscaping includes numerous trees and shrubs along the street frontages. Additional site improvements include full public utilities, grading and an asphalt parking lot with striped-parking for 20 vehicles. For its downtown location, the latter produces a much- better- than- average parking ratio of 4.40 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross building area ( GBA). Subject’ s 0.25 floor- area- ratio ( FAR), based upon a gross building area of 4,541 sf, is also better- than- average for the downtown core.

Based upon the attributes cited above, the subject has good site utility and appeal.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 29

SITE DESCRIPTION
Land Use and Zoning
The property resides within a Commercial land use designation under the city’s existing General Plan. Specifically, it is zoned: DC: Downtown Core Zone. The following excerpt is taken from the city planning department’ s web site:

The DC Zone allows for the highest density and intensity of development with a wide variety of commercial uses and residential uses located in mixed- use buildings. A tight network of walkable blocks, regularly spaced street trees and buildings set at the frontage line.

The regulation emphasizes a broad range of retail, office and residential uses (the latter as part of a mixed-use development).

Development standards under the DC zoning include:

1. Residential Density:
a. Minimum: 15 units/ gross acre
b. Maximum: 28 units/ gross acre

2. Minimum lot size:
a. Interior: 2,500 sf
b. Corner: 3,000 sf

3. Lot Dimensions:
a. Width: 30’ minimum
b. Depth: 70’ minimum

4. Lot Coverage: 90% maximum

5. Building Setbacks:
a. Front: 0’
b. Front w/ sidewalk café/ shop front: 12’ maximum
c. Side: 0’ to 6’ maximum
d. Rear: 6’ minimum
e. Rear, corner lot, no alley: 6’ maximum
f. Rear w/ alley: 14’ from center line

6. Building Height Limits: 2-stories minimum; 4-stories maximum

7. Number of Buildings: 1

8. Parking:
a. Retail and Office: 1 space per 300 sf of gross floor area b. Restaurant: 1 space for every 3 seats, with a minimum of 4 spaces; plus an additional space for each two employees at maximum shift c. Residential: 1 space per dwelling unit
Based upon these regulations, the subject parcel and office use are legal and conforming to the DC zoning.

30 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

SITE DESCRIPTION
Flood Hazard
Subject is located in FEMA map reference # 06045C1514F, Zone X ( areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain), dated 06/ 02/2011.

The property is not located in a FEMA- designated flood- hazard area.

Earthquake Hazard
Per the California Dept. of Conservation’ s California Geological Survey, the property is located in the Ukiah Quadrangle, but is not situated on a known fault zone.

In general, much of California is traversed by numerous faults – including many as-yet-known that produce frequent and sometimes notable seismic activity. The proximity to a fault has proven to have little or no impact upon an area’ s marketability; though it may trigger additional building requirements to mitigate damage from an earthquake.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 31

SITE DESCRIPTION
Environmental Hazard
Per the State Water Resource Control Board’ s Geotracker website, there are 17 environmental hazard sites identified within a 1,000’ radius of the subject. Sixteen are marked completedcase closed; one is open under remediation.

Though it is noted the appraiser is not an expert in the detection of such matters, a cursory inspection finds no known or noted environmental hazards at the subject.

32 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St
SITE DESCRIPTION: Aerial Photograph
North)
GoogleEarth. Date 06/ 02/ 2021. Keith Sablik, MAI)
Subject is identified by the red arrow. Adjacent and nearby uses include commercial properties to the north and south; a public parking lot ( A) to the northeast; a public library ( B) to the east; and the Mendocino County Courthouse (C) to the west.

Vehicular access to and from the property is via State St or Main St.

The subject is situated at the intersection of two major arterial roadways – State St ( yellow line) and Perkins St (green line) – in, which forms the center of Ukiah’s downtown core. The high visibility afforded the subject is a significant contributor to its good location appeal.

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 33
SITE DESCRIPTION: Assessor’ s Parcel Map

34 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
Building Summary:

Type Two- story, single- tenant office building
Gross Building Area 4,541 sf
Year Built Circa 1950s
Construction Detail:

Foundation Concrete slab
Construction Type Masonry ( concrete block)
Roof Covering
Built- up composition ( not visible – estimated from aerial images)
Siding Concrete block
Windows Single- pane, aluminum sash & wood case
Interior Walls
Finished sheetrock, concrete block & corrugated metal
panels
Ceiling
Finished sheetrock, acoustic tile & acoustic drop- panel ceilings ( 8’ to 12’)
Floor Coverings
Granite tile, carpet, vinyl plank, linoleum tile, & polished concrete
HVAC Multiple roof-mounted HVAC units are noted in aerial images, providing warmed/ cooled air to the building
Lighting Fluorescent, cannister & track lighting units
Plumbing Fixtures Standard grade ( two 2-fixture restrooms & break room) Electrical Standard grade
Insulation Unknown
Security Standard locks & alarm system
Other
52-sf storage that functions as the base for the exterior staircase and 104-sf balcony/ landing

Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St 35
IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION: Building Sketch

36 Keith Sablik, MAI: 101 N State St

IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
Improvement data was obtained from a physical inspection of the interior and exterior of the property on April 26, 2022. Building areas are calculated by an automated sketch program Apex IV) based upon measurements taken during the inspection.

The subject is improved with an average quality, two-story, single-tenant office building estimated to have been constructed circa 1950s. Its design has no significant architectural detailing, as is common of the era, and has average appeal to the market.

The structure has a gross building area of 4,541 sf and is 100% efficient. Construction is masonry ( concrete block) over a concrete slab foundation. Exterior materials include concrete block siding; built-up composition shingle roof (not visible – estimated from aerial images); and single-pane, aluminum sash & wood case windows.

The building is currently 100% occupied by the owner in the operation of a real estate brokerage firm. It is possible, however, for it to function as a dual-tenant building with the restrooms functioning as a common area to the two suites.

As utilized current, the floor plan includes a first- floor reception/ waiting area, large and small open- office areas, two private offices, conference room, break room, stairwell and two 2-fixture restrooms. The second- floor includes three private offices, open- office floor space and a storage room.

The floor plan functions well with no noted obsolescence in its design.