Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-06-15 Packet
CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 June 15, 2005 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.: Presentation From TJM TranSportation Consultants Regarding The Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INTRODUCTION/PROCLAMATION a. Introduction of New Water Treatment Employee, Paul Zellman b. Proclamation: Recognition of Gay Pride Week 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2005 1 RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City's Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. Sm CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Disbursements for Month of May 2005 b. Award of Bid to Spinlab Utility Instrumentation, Inc. for the Purchase of the 6000 Bird Dog Plus Analyzer in the Amount of $14,081.41 c. Authorization of the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter Into a Professional Consulting Services Agreement With Brown and Caldwell to Update the City of Ukiah's 2002 Urban Water Management Plan For An Amount Not to Exceed $33,821 d. Reject All Bids And Authorize Acquisition By Cooperative Purchasing Method The Purchase of a 2006 50' Digger-Derrick International 4300 4 x 2 to Altec Industries, Inc. in the Amount of $160,756.58 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Adoption of Resolution Adjusting Fees for the Ukiah Muncipal Golf Course b. Adoption of Revised Ordinance Extending Temporary Moratorium on Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana and Negative Declaration Under California Environmental Quality Act c. Consideration and Possible Extension of Urgency Ordinance Imposing Moratorium on New Marijuana Dispensaries gm UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Consideration and Possible Action Concerning Feasibility Study Agreement Between Mendodno County Inland Water & Power Commission and Army Corp of Engineers 10. COUNCIL REPORTS 11. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK REPORTS 12. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator G.C. §54957.6 City Designated Representative: Candace Horsley, City Manager Employee Organization: Management Unit b. Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54596.9(a) River Watch v. City of Ukiah, Federal District Court, Case No. C04 04518 CW (N.D. Cal.) c. Conference With Legal Counsel-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Initiation of litigation (1 case) 13. ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY~ JUNE 27~ 20054~ 8:00 A.M. 2005/06 BUDGET HEARING The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. ITEM NO. DATE: June 15, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: PRESENTATION FROM TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS REGARDING THE ROUTE 101 CORRIDOR INTERCHANGE STUDY SUMMARY: The Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) established a work element in its Overall Work Program for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 to conduct the Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study. MCOG issued a Request for Proposals and awarded a contract to TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM) in December 2004 to conduct the study. TJKM has now completed the draft report. Gary Kruger of TJKM will give the presentation regarding the Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: None. Diana Steele, Director of Public Works / City Engi0eer Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. PowerPoint presentation. 2. Draft Report Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study in Mendocino County (Ukiah Area) dated June 6, 2005 APPROVED:L-~_z~~ Candace Horsley, City~anager AG-101 Interchange Study. SUM Attachment # Overview Scope of Study Six Interchanges were Studied >Route 101/Lake MendoCino Driv® interchange > Route 101/NOrth state Street interchange >RoUte 101/East Perkins Street interchange ~Route 101/East Gobbi Street interchange > Route 101~aimage Road interchange >Route 101/SR 253 - South State Street Interchange Methodology Analysis of Existing Conditions > Congestion at Intersections and Ramps >Queuing at Intersections and Ramps >Collisions at Intersections and Ramps Interim Mitigations (2005) Install New Signals Optimize/Coordinate with Existing Re-stripe & Increase Length of Prioritization of 2005 Improvements Ra-Stripe/add a lane on Route 10tat N. State St. Notes: B/C Ratio calculation assurrptions include a 10)~ear annualiz~ c__a?tal cost, Collision cost of $4t,000..~r. c?!~!?~,~ ............ and $t5~ur of w ~.~.~. .... ~ Gobbi St./Orchard Ave. for FY 05-06 Analysis of 2025 Conditions : roposed Future (2025)Improvements Signalization $ 101 betWeen lO 11 12 Cost of Future Improvements (2025) ]E. Perkins Stree~ lq. State Street $0.63 M $3.9 M E. Gobbi Street ~.17 M $2.7 M Talmage Road (Optionl) Talmage Road (Option 2) ....... $5.1 M $1o.s M Lake Mendocino Drive ...... $1.8 M 13 ITEM NO. DATE: June 15, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW WATER TREATMENT EMPLOYEE, PAUL ZELLMAN Submitted to the City Council is the introduction of Paul Zellman as a new employee at the City's Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Paul has family roots in the community and is very active in community involvement including the Boy Scouts. He is responsible and directs a number of Scout activities and can be seen many times placing flags along State Street on designated holidays. His previous background and experience in water systems allows him to be a very capable employee for performing the work tasks associated with providing the City of Ukiah with clean, reliable and safe drinking water. He brings with him new and fresh ideas, a good sense of humor, and strong work ethics. He has fit in very well with the WTP staff and brings a team approach to the work atmosphere we strive for in operating and maintaining one of the City's important resources. His attitude will no doubt make him a valuable asset for the City as an operator and employee. The Staff at the WTP feel very fortunate to have him on their team. Please welcome Paul Zellman to the City's staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Welcome Paul Zellman as a new city employee. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with' Attachments: N/A Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Alan Jamison, Supervisor, Water Treatment Plant Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. None Candace Horsley,'~ty Manager PROCLAMATION OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL "Recognition of Gay Pride Week" June 12- 19, 2005 WHEREAS, throughout the United States during the month of June, celebrations, rallies, and parades will be held recognizing the diversity and strength that has developed in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community; and WHEREAS, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in Ukiah are productive, compassionate, and contributing members of the community; and WHEREAS, the United States Constitution clearly provides that all citizens are entitled to equal protection and basic civil rights under the law; and WHEREAS, the Pride Alliance Network in Mendocino County was formed as a non- profit organization in October 2003 to help create .safety, self-respect, and support for LGBT communities and their supportive families and friends; and WHEREAS, the Pride Alliance Network; the Mendocino County chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; the Billy Foundation; other community organizations; and gay and straight community members support Gay Pride Week in Ukiah and throughout Mendocino County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Uldah City Council, hereby proclaims June 12 - 19, 2005, as: "Gay Pride Week in the City of Ukiah' Dated: ~~/~9~/~~~'' Mark Ashiku, Mayor MEMO Agenda Item: 4a TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City Clerk Marie Ulvila ~z~.~..i~.. ~~.~/.~ SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of April 20, 2005 DATE: June 10, 2005 Every effort will be made to provide Council with a copy of the Draft minutes for the April 20, 2005 no later than Tuesday, June 4, 2005. Memos: CC Late Minutes / ITEM NO.: ~ ~ DATE: June 15, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2005 Payments made during the month of May 2005, are summarized on the attached Report of Disbursements. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedule of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 61885-61965, 62035-62218, 62305-62381 Accounts Payable Manual check numbers: none Payroll Check numbers: 61966-62034, 62221-62304 Payroll Manual check numbers: 62219-62220 Void check numbers: none This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7, Article 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Report of Disbursements for the month of May 2005. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Kim Sechrest, Accounts Payable Specialist Coordinated with:Mike McCann, Director of Finance and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED:. C~n'~ce HorSley, City Mana~r KRS:WORD/AGENDAFMAY05 CITY OF UKIAH REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2005 Demand Payments approved: 61885-61965, 62035-62129, 62130-62218, 62305-62381 FUNDS: 100 General Fund $124,385.33 600 131 Equipment Reserve Fund $1,659.98 611 140 Park Development $25,096.83 612 141 Museum Grants $4,215.00 615 143 N.E.H.1. Museum Grant 620 150 Civic Center Fund 640 200 Asset Seizure Fund $192.98 650 201 Asset Seizure (Drug/Alcohol) 652 203 H&S Education 11489 (B)(2)(A1) 660 204 Federal Asset Seizure Grants 661 205 Sup Law Enforce. Srv. Fund (SLESF) $90,078.03 664 206 Community Oriented Policing 670 207 Local Law Enforce. BIk Grant $1,666.66 678 220 Parking Dist. #10per & Maint $943.96 679 230 Parking Dist. #1 Revenue Fund 695 250 Special Revenue Fund 696 260 Downtown Business Improvement $11,393.78 697 290 Bridge Fund 698 301 2107 Gas Tax Fund 699 310 Special Aviation Fund 800 315 Airport Capital Improvement $14,781.67 805 330 Revenue Sharing Fund 806 332 Federal Emerg. Shelter Grant 820 333 Comm. Development Block Grant 840 334 EDBG 94-333 Revolving Loan 900 335 Community Dev. Comm. Fund 910 340 SB325 Reimbursement Fund 920 341 S.T.P. 940 342 Trans-Traffic Congest Relief 950 345 Off-System Roads Fund 960 410 Conference Center Fund $7,367.23 962 550 Lake Mendocino Bond 965 575 Garage $1,854.09 966 975 976 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS 61966-62034 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 24092-24226 PAYROLL PERIOD 4/24/05-5/7/05 PAYROLL CHECK NUMBERS: 62219-62304 DIRECT DEPOSIT NUMBERS 24227-24373 PAYROLL PERIOD 5/8/05-5/21/05 VOID CHECK NUMBERS: NONE Airport Sewer Construction Fund City/District Sewer City/District Sewer Replace Special Sewer Fund (Cap imp) San Dist Revolving Fund Spec San Dist Fund (Cap Imp) REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund Sanitary Disposal Site Fund Landfill Corrective Fund Disposal Closure Reserve U.S.W. Bill & Collect Public Safety Dispatch MESA (Mendocino Emergency Srv Auth) Golf Warehouse/Stores Billing Enterprise Fund Fixed Asset Fund Special Projects Reserve Electric Street Lighting Fund Public Benefits Charges Water Special Water Fund (Cap Imp) Special Deposit Trust Worker's Comp. Fund Liability Fund Payroll Posting Fund General Service (Accts Recv) Community Redev. Agency Redevelopment Housing Fund Redevelopment Cap Imprv. Fund Redevelopment Debt Svc. Russian River Watershed Assoc Mixing Zone Policy JPA TOTAL DEMAND PAYMENTS TOTAL PAYROLL VENDOR CHECKS TOTAL PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,266.14 $45,302.24 $36,697.75 $4,192.95 $1,147.50 $785.18 $24,222.10 $9,272.73 $1,224.58 $6,315.37 $2,427.05 $592,401.41 $9,086.50 $2,30i-.43 $59,992.19 $629,605.81 $7,783.49 $376.04 $273,261.24 $2,379.59 $70.36 $14,432.21 $18,746.21 $39,573.56 $2,081,499.17 $56,629.62 $122,184.68 $338,026.39 $2,598,339.86 CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve for accuracy and available funds. City Manager Director of Finance rj · ~j · o o o o o o o o o o I.D IF} o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O0 o o o o o o o o °~ 0'3 0 0 o o o o o o · . o ~ · o o °~ · ~ <2> O0 H ~ o o o · 0'3 ~ · 0 0 , o o o o o o o o · 0 o o · 0 o o o o ~R oo~© o ooo O~ O~ © m 0 0 O0 0 0 ~ o o o o o o o ~ ~o °~ o ooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o og 00 00 o o 0000 0000 0 0 ~ ~o~~oo o 0 0 000000~ 00~000 00~00~ oo~ 00, ~0 HHHO o~o 0 0 ~1~ g° H 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 LD LO0~ C~C~ ~0~:1~ C~O~ ~0 00~::~ O~O~O~O~C~C~(~C~O0000000000000 0000000000000000000000 000000 000000 000000 O0 00000 0 0 ~00~000~00~0~~0 0000000000000000000000 oo ~ oooo~ oo ~ ~°°~° HHHHHHO ~ o r~ o o ~ ~o oo~o o o o tJH H H i i ~ ~J · > 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 000 00 000 0 u'3 Lr~ L~ 0 O0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ~o Ho · . 000 000 ~oo~ 0 O00 · 0 · ~-q ~ O00 · . 0 · , 0 000~ 00 C~ C~ · g° (D o o O0 0000 ~°~ °°~ o~ ~o Or~rj i o o ~~ 000 H oo~o o o o o o ~0 ~o oooooooooo 0 0 o~o o o o o · , o o o · 0 0 ooo · 0 oo o ~0 ~o · 0 ~ oo · , Y o o o o ~3 co 00 ~~O~oo o o 00000000 ~000000 ........ O0 .... ...... ~ffiO0~OOi~ ~~~00 o 0~r.j o~ o~ H 0 ~OOH 0 0 ~~ ~o~ ~o ~0 ~H~H~HOH~H o o 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000 00000000 HHHHHHHH o ~o O~ O~ {.,/} H ~ H ~H [~0 0 ooo 0 0 oo8° o oo o · 0 ooo · , · 0 HOHO oo~ oo o Ot~ ~88©o o H ~D > c> o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 co o o o o °$ o o ooo o oo o o o oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo o o o o · . o o · . o o ,-~ ,-t · . o o o o ,-~ ,-t H ~0 0 0 0 {~ EEo~EoooEoogEo O0 000 O0 0 00000000000000 .... ....... ... ~oo~oo~o~o~~ ~o ...... .... .... ~oo~o~o~~ ~ o~ ~o o~ ~oo~§o~oo~oo oo ~ o~ ~ H H ~ H O~ ~o z H ~0 ~00000000000000 00000000000000 i 0000 0 0 o ~ oo o HHHH d 0 ~ ~HHHH O~ 0~ o o ~ o o o o o o o o 0'3 O0 u~ u~ o o o~ o o 0 0 oo .0. · , o~mo o . . · o oo~ 00. °~ O~ ~ju~ 0 {Dm ~m OE~ 0 .:z: O:Z: ,< u"J ,<m ~ i C~ 0'10 0~ O L¢I LC} O C) 00000000 00000000 00000000 O O O 00000000 00000000 000000000000 ~§OOoo§o°°~°°~ooo O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000 o o O0 00000000 00000000 00000000 oo o~ HHHHHHHHO 0,-.4 rj.~ ~o H~HH~HH o ~ H o HHHHHHHHHHHH ~000000000000 000 000 0000 OO OO OO O 0 O0 O0 000000000 000000000 0000 o o 0000 0000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0 0 o o o o · 1:2> C> · C~ °~ o o oo~~o~o O0 O0 O0 0 000000000000 O~ ~ ~~~oo oo~oo~oo~o O0 O0 O0 0 0 HO000 000000000000 ~000000000000 i ~,D rJ . o > o 00000000000000000 oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0000 0 0 0000000~0000~000 ~oo~o~g~oo~ooo~ o~ ~ ~ 000~0~000~0~00~ ~0~0~0~~00~ ~000~0~~~~ ~oo~o ~o~oo~oo ~ ~ H~ ~ H~H H~HHH~ HHO ~oo~ o o o · i o~ o o o · 0 o o o o 00 00 · o o · 0 o 00000000000000000 ~00000000000000000 O~ 0 o c) o~ o o o o o o o o c~} 03 o o o o o o o o co co · o o co co · $° oo co o o o o o o · o o · , o~ o o o , ~ o · · o o o 0~ 0~ · 0 0 o ~ o o o o O0 o o oo o o o o o 03030"1 ~ o o ~oo oo · , ooo 0 · 0 0 ~ 8°8~o o oo~ o o ooo o ooo o ooo ~88~ o ~ o O~ ~0 0 O0 oo oo o ooooooo o o o o 0 0 o~o o o .; o o · 0 °~ <2> oo~ o o o o o o o o o o · o oo~oooo 00~ ~ 0 HHOI~IH~ O0 OOO4O OOoO o o ooo · . oo o . . , i i rJ3 H 03 O ~0 H R o i i H o oo o o o o o o o o c) t'xl c> {2:> o o o o o [13 [13 0 0 o o o o o ~,~ o o o I.-q o~o o o ooo mmmo HHHO o o o · o · © o o o o o · 0 o o o o o o o o · o , o · o 0 o o o o o o · 0 o o o o , 0 120 ix) o oo ooooo °~°°~ oo o~ ~ ~0 HH~HO 0 U i H ~ r,j > 0 ~ ~ ~n o o o oo Oo ~o~ O0 0000 OOOO 0000 OOOO O O O 0 00 0~ O O O O O O <2) O 00 00 00 C~ C> o 0 °c~° 0 000 · 0 , 0 0 0 ~ 0 , , O0 O0 000000 ~OOO~O O~O~ 00~0~ 0~0~ ~oo~ OO o ~ 0 ~~0 HHHHO HHHO 0 0 0 · 0 · O0 · 00 00 00 · 0 00 O~ C~ , , ~rj or~ HHH 0~ ~000000 UO000 om H o o o o {2O O0 ~ {2> o o o o o o o o ooo 0 0 oo ~0 000 o o o o · 0 o~ ~ 0'3 · · o o o H ~D rJ · > ~J . ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~oo~ oo ooooo o o o0 Ln L~ ~--~ · C',} 0 o · o oo ~o~ ~°°~ oo o 00 o 7° ~o ooo o ~o 0 X~ 5g 0~ H E~ 0~ H ~E~ Om H i 0 0 0 0 0 ooo o o o o o o o ~-q {2> <2> o o o oo o o o o o o c> i 0 0 0 oo o ~0 0 0 O~ O ~0 O~ r./'} 12.., r-.4 ~ HO ~J · ~ ~o ~ ~o ~ ~ 0 o 0 o 0 0 o§ oo~ o o · . o o o o ~0 O~ o ~ ~:> ~ H ~J · 000 O00 00 00 00 ~oo 0000 ~°°~ 000~ 000~ 0 0 0 O0 · . · ~° · 0 0 · , 000~ ~0 o o o o o .; o o · , o o o o o 0 O0 (J (J I-q H U :~o 0 00000000 00000000 ~; ~ ~ o o o~2~ oo ooo oo ooooooooooo~~~~~ oooooooooooooooooooooooo HHHH NHHHHHHHH H 0 0 o o 0 0~ o o ~ 0~ o · o ~J '~ oo oo oo~~oo oooooooo oo~oo§oo~oo§oo~o~§oo~ ~~O~~O~O~O~~O ....0.0.00 ..... 0..00.000 o§~oo oo o~~oo~~ ~ o o u} o 00~ ~J , ~0 > 0 0000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000000000000000000 0 ~ <2) o 0 ~oo~oo~oo O0 O0 O0 0000000000 ... ..... .. ~o~o~oo .......... o~oo~~ ~0 ~ O~ ~0000~~0 .......... oo~oo~oo~ O0 O~ ~ o~88~8~~°~8°°88~88°°~oo oo oo oo o oo 000000000000000000000000 ................. ....... ~0~00~0~~0~00~ 00~00~000~0000~000~00 ~~ ~ O~ O~ ~0 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ........0............... 0000000000000~~~000 00 00 00 · . 00 · . 00 0 ,~ · . 00 °~ 000 r~ ~.~ o oo o ooooooooooooo o oo oo oo 120 o o o o 00 co oo oo oo oo ooooooooooooo 0 O0 ~ ooo mmm ~0 o§ o ~0~ O0 O0 0000000 0000000 o o o o oo 0 0 o o · . o o · . o o °~ oo~ o o ooo · . . · , HNH~ ~0 HHHHHHN 0 H r.x.1 H HO O~ o o o o o c~ o o o o o o (3o co ~-I ~ o o O0 O0 O0 00 00 000 0 ~ ~ · 0 ~oo~o 0 O0 0 0000000 0000000 0000000 °~°~~ O~ ~000~000 rj · o > oo oooo oooo oooo o ~ ~ oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo o o o o o o o o 00 o o ooooo ooooo o 0 ~oo~ oo o~o oooo oooo 0 0 ~00~ o oo oo oooooooo ~oo~oo O0 O~ ~oo~o~ o co ~ ~ H H ~o o o o o o . . o · . o o · u~ lid o oo ooooo ..... °~°°~ ~~0 · .... 00000 00000 o o o o o~ o o o o o o ooo oo~o oooo oooo oooo 0 0 o · 0 o o o · 0 t'xl 0q cq · , 0. H 0 ~ ~ HO ~.4 H 0'< L~ o oo co,co og 000 O0 0000000 0000000 0 0000 0 0 0000 0~ 0 0 o~ oo ooo 00. · o · o oo~ o o o · , · co H ~0 or../ o 0000000 H O0 O0 O0 000 O0 0 O0 O0 000 O0 O0 O0 000000000000000000000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 000 00 O0 0 ~ o~ ~ oo oooooo o o o o o o 0 o o · o o · 0 o o °~ O0 O0 000000 000000 000~0~ 0~00~ o~oO~o o o O~ U~ ~000000 oo o oooo oo o ooooooooooo oo oo oo ooooooooooo 0 0 oo~o oo oooo oo~o oooo o~oo HHNHO HHHHHOHHHHHO o o · . o o · . o o o o i H o o · o ~0 o c~ · o o i O0 O0 0000000 .. 0000000 o~oo~o 0 O0 0 ~H ~~~~~o oo oo o 0000000000000 0 00 00 o~;;~;;~oo o 000000000 000000000 o~ o o o · Oh · ~0 E~ o~ oo~ Ha:: or~ ~o UU~J oo oo oo >> E~ 000 0~ CD 0 o o O0 o~~0o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~o ~o o~o ~o o~oo~o o ~ 000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00 · · ~ 0 · ~° o o o o c~ c~ o ~ oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo o o~ oo o~ ~o ~o oo oo oo oo o ~ ~ ~00 ~000 O0 0~ ~E~ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo H O OO OO O O OOOOOOOOOOO ~~~~~oo oo ooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O [13 0 0 g~° cq OOOOOOOOOOO oo~o~g~o~ ~oo oo~~~ o o ~§oo~oo§~oo~ o§ OO OO OO O OOOOOOOOOOOO O0 ~oo~oo oo~o~ oo ~oo~oo o~~ oo~o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~H H~ ooo ~0 HHHHHH HHHHHHHH ~000000~00000000 i.~ ooo o§ O OO OO 0 0 oo~ o o o oo · 0 0 · 0 c~ ~D c~l H o OOOOOO ~00~0 o ooooo~ oo~o~ HHHN~HO o~o o ~° ~~0 ~8~~ o o , HHHHHHHH ~0000 d o o o o oo o oo o 00 00 ooo 120 ~0 · o · · o · O~ 0 AGENDA SUMMARY Item NO /o ~ Date: June 15, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID TO SPINLAB UTILITY INSTRUMENTATION, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE 6000 BIRD DOG PLUS ANALYZER IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,081.41 A quotation was requested for the purchase of the 6000 Bird Dog Plus Analyzer, a portable tool that identifies electric metering circuit problems. The 6000 Bird Dog Plus Analyzer designed by Spinlab Utility Instrumentation, Inc. was determined by City Staff to be an in service revenue testing product that would meet the City's needs. Spinlab Utility Instrumentation Inc. is the sole manufacturer of the 6000 Bird Dog Plus Analyzer as per letter attached. The cost of the 6000 Bird Dog Plus is $14,081.41 which includes eight hours of on-site training, travel expenses, tax and freight and has been budgeted in the 2004/2005 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3650.690.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award bid for the purchase of the 6000 Bird Dog Plus Analyzer to Spinlab Utility Instrumentation, Inc. in the amount of $14,081.41 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject bid and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment: Letter from vendor ,... ?-,,, AP P ROVED ['._ 3~:::~-J~'~~_,~ Candace Horsley, City Manager Spinlab Utility Instrumentation Inc. Splnlab Utility Instrumentation Inc. 3110 Henson Rd.. Suite A1 Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 Phone: (865) 212-9881 Fax: (865) 212-9886 ATTACHMENT,....,.~/ May 31, 2oo5 Ukiah Municipal Electric 300 Seminary Avenue UkialL CA 95482 Attn: Judy This letter serves ns confirmation that Spinlab Utility Instrumentation is the sole manufacturer of the 5000/6000'Bird Do8 Plus Analyzer and Spinlab accessories. We do not have any distributors'ofour products in the United States. An attempt to obtain a quote from any outside source would require that vendor to contact us for a price quotation. Please let us know if you need further clarification or have any questions. Sincerely, Elaine McClure; Office Manager Spinlab Utility Instrumentation, Inc. ITEM NO. (p ~ DATE: June 15_ 2005 A~I:::NI~A RUMMARY RI=PI3RT SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL TO UPDATE THE CITY OF UKIAH'S 2002 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $33,821 SUMMARY: An update to Ukiah's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) needs to be prepared in response to the State of California's Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656. The Act requires "Every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan" (Section 10617). The Act also requires that water suppliers provide updates to their Plan every five years (with the latest update due 2005). Preparation of the UWMP Update is not only a legal mandate, but also an eligibility requirement for State funding, such as Proposition 50, Chapter 8 grant funds (Water Bonds). In Apdl 2005, a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare the UWMP update was sent to 17 engineering consulting firms that provide services for municipal water systems. Four proposals were received and evaluated by the Department of Public Utilities staff. Each proposal was reviewed and ranked based on evaluation criteda specified in the RFP document. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a Professional Consulting Services Agreement with Brown and Caldwell to update the City of Ukiah's 2002 Urban Water Management Plan for an amount not to exceed $33,821. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1) Determine a different firm is more qualified and select another consultant to perform the work. 2) Reject all proposals and provide direction to staff. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Bemie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: Ann Burck, Project Engineer Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1) RFP Distribution List 2) Table I - Professional Consultant Services to Prepare the City of Ukiah's UVVMP Proposal Evaluation APPROVED:' C er The evaluation results for the four proposals are shown in Table 1. Brown and Caldwell (B&C) received the highest evaluation score, 95 out of a possible 100 points and they had the lowest proposal cost estimate of $33,821. The strengths of Brown & Caldwelrs proposal include: 1) an experienced team with 83 years of engineering experience and that has prepared more than 60 UWMPs, 2) numerous B&C additions to the RFP Scope of Work to ensure the UVVMP meets 2005 California Department of Water Resources requirements, 3) comprehensive approach to water supply planning, and 4) a water conservation expert on the UWMP team to address key issues of water conservation and water reuse. Brown and Caldwell is currently preparing UWMPs for Sonoma County Water Agency, Sacramento Suburban Water District, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Valley of the Moon, North Madn Water District, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, Windsor, Davis, El Dorado Irrigation District, and the Placer County Water Agency. Staff believes Brown and Caldwell has the requisite experience and qualifications and offers the City the best value for professional consultant services to prepare the City's 2005 UWMP. Therefore Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate the final terms and enter into a contract with Brown and Caldwell for the services outlined in the Request for Proposals City of Ukiah 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Copies of the recommended proposal from Brown and Caldwell are available for City Council review. Funds were budgeted and are available for this project in the FY '04-'05 budget, account # 820-3901-250-000. ATTACHMENI'~ City of Ukiah 2005 Urban Water Management Plan RFP Professional Consultant Services Distribution List April 2005 Geoconsultants, Inc. 1450 Koll Circle Suite 114 San Jose, California 95112 Hanover Environmental Services, Inc. 1072 Marauder Street, Suite 220 Chico, Ca. 95973 Todd Engineers 2200 Powell Street, Suite 225 Emeryville, California 94608-1809 Martin Steinpress, R.G.C.H.G. Brown and Caldwell 201 North Civic Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Perry Petersen, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc. 350 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94612-2049 Greg Ow, P.E. Harris & Associates 120 Mason Circle Concord, CA 94520-1214 Ted Whiton, P.E. Winzler & Kelly 495 Tesconi Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4696 Robert Gailey, R.G., C.H.G. The Source Group, Inc. 3451-C Vincent Road Pleasant Hill, California 94523 URS Corporation 100 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 MWH Americus, Inc. 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Camp Dresser & McKee One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Carrollo Engineers 2500 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95883 Brelje & Race Consulting Engineers 5570 Skylane Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Quest GeoSystems Management 504 Limewood Drive Antioch, California 94509-5657 Black and Veatch 8950 Cai Center Drive, Suite 238 Sacramento, CA 95826 SHN Consulting Engineers 812 West Wabash Eureka, CA 95501 Geothermal Surveys, Inc. 520 Mission St. South Pasadena, CA 91030 ATTACHMENT Table 1. UWMP Proposal Evaluation Maximum Todd Winzler & Brown & RFP Evaluation Criteria URS # Points Engineering Kelly Caldwell 1. Fulfillment of RFP Requirements 5 5 5 5 5 2. Technical Approach 30 20 30 30 10 3. Project Personnel Experience 25 15 20 20 10 4. Past Performance on Similar Projects 25 15 20 25 10 5. Current Workload of Consultant 5 5 5 5 5 6. Suitability of Project Schedule 5 3 3 5 5 7. Conciseness 5 5 5 5 5 Total Points 100 68 88 95 50 Ranking 3 2 1 4 AGENDA SUMMARY Item No 6d Date: June 15, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: REJECT ALL BIDS AND AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION BY COOPERATIVE PURCHASING METHOD THE PURCHASE OF A 2006 50' DIGGER-DERRICK INTERNATIONAL 4300 4 X 2 TO ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,756.58 A request for quotation through the formal bid process was sent to three suppliers for the purchase of a 2006 50' Digger-Derrick mounted on a 2006 International 4300 4 x 2 truck chassis. Two bids were received; one bid met specifications at $189,145.18 including tax. Staff was then made aware of the California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) for electrical line equipment and was told the CMAS bids might be lower. Staff reevaluated specifications and requested quotes through (CMAS) contracts that are administered and awarded by the State of California. The CMAS bid was lower. Staff elects to reject the two initial bids. Two quotes were received by CMAS. Altec Industries, Inc. is the lowest compliant bidder with a total bid of $160,756.58. $150,000.00 is budgeted in the 2004/2005 Fiscal Year in Account Number 800.3728.800.000. This CMAS bid is $10,756.58 over the 04/05 budget amount. Therefore, Staff is requesting authorization of a budget amendment in the amount of $10,756.58 to allow for the increased cost and to authorize the City Manager to enter into the acquisition of the truck by the cooperative purchasing method. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Reject initial two bids, authorize an 04/05 budget amendment and authorize the City Manager to enter into an acquisition by cooperative purchasing method the purchase of a 2006 50' Digger Derrick International 4300 4 x 2 to Altec Industries, Inc. through CMAS in the amount of $160,756.58 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Reject all bids and provide direction to staff Citizen Advised. N/A Requested by: Stan Bartolomei, Electrical Supervisor Prepared by: Judy Jenney, Purchasing & Warehouse Assistant Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager; Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director Attachment: 1. Bid results APPROVED:.. _~~~'~ Candace Horsley,-City Manager 2006 50' DIGGER DERRICK INTERNATIONAL 4300 4 X ? REJECTED INITIAL TWO BIDS: ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC TEREX UTILITIES Attachment 1 $165,396.28 $189,145.18 CMAS BIDS ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC TEREX UTILITIES $160,756.58 + *$4,115.37 = $164,871.95 $171,993.67 + *$4,403.04 = $176,396.21 *(CMAS surcharge 2.56% of total) AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 8a DATE: June 15, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ADJUSTING FEES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE On May 4th, Council conducted a workshop to discuss several golf course operations issues. This discussion was prompted by the critical nature of the golf enterprise fund operational deficit. The Golf Course is projected to lose approximately $42,000 in FY2004/05. Next year's budget, without the fee increase, reflects a $60,388 deficit which will likely require a General Fund transfer. As a result of the workshop discussion, Council directed staff to meet with representatives of the Men's and Women's Golf Clubs and determine an appropriate schedule of fees to reverse the budget deficit. That direction was based on the need to not simply raise rates but to review in depth the possibilities for restructuring the fee schedule to improve parity among all golfers, become better aligned with industry standards, and improve budget performance. Staff had been meeting with the Men's Club over the last ten months and has also met with the Women's Club as well. The two Clubs generally concurred on key issues and as a result of those discussions, three options were endorsed by both clubs and are being forwarded to Council for consideration. (Continued on Page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Scenario #3 adjusting fees for Ukiah Municipal Golf Course. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine adoption of Resolution requires further consideration and remand to staff with direction. 2. Determine adoption of Resolution is inappropriate at this time and do not move to approve. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Golf Course Representatives City Council Larry W. DeKnoblough, Community Services Director and Sage Sangiacomo, Community Services Supervisor },,j,,J ~ ~.... ~.:~ Candace Horsley, City Manager I- Attachments: 1. Draft Resolutions 2. Comparative Fee Schedules From Area Golf Course Including Ukiah Candace Horsley, Cit'~Manager Overview Revenue generation for the Golf Course is limited by a fee structure that is heavily slanted to discounts. Approximately 80% of all rounds are played at a discount rate. The existing fee structure includes five main categories and several sub-categories. For instance, the category of annual memberships includes the five sub-categories of adult, adult couple, senior, senior couple, and junior, all of varying and sometimes compounded discounts. Ukiah's current fee structure is included in the fee comparison sheet as Attachment #2. The greatest majority of golf course revenue is generated from daily greens fees (almost $183,000) or approximately 30%. Yet daily fees account for only 19% of the total rounds played, while annual memberships account for nearly 43% of the total rounds played and contribute less than 25% ($150,000) of the financial support. The daily rate payer is generally a golfer who plays only occasionally or at most two to three times per month, as opposed to the average annual member who will play at least two times per week. This is significant because it emphasizes recognition of the value of the casual or out of town golfer and that any future fee structure should not unduly place the burden of balancing the Golf Course budget on the backs of nonmember golfers. This is also a parity issue in that a fee structure on a municipally owned golf course that continually increases the daily rate as an offset to maintaining a favorable membership fee structure limits equal accessibility of the golf course to all members of our community. Furthermore, the Men's and Women's Club have indicated that nearly two-thirds of their members are daily rate players. Past attempts to restructure the membership fee schedule through increased fees, limitations on play, or elimination of the senior discount have been unsuccessful as any limitations on annual memberships have generated a significant level of contention. In staff's discussion with the Men's and Women's Clubs, both groups expressed that if possible, they would prefer to maintain memberships, however, both Clubs agreed that the annual membership fee categories have been unfairly Iow and too liberal in the amount of play allowed. Currently annual memberships allow unlimited play seven days per week with deep discounts for seniors and senior couples. The actual number of annuals fluctuates each year but as a rule there are between 150 and 190 annual members, which represent about 1% of the City's citizens. Over the last three years, the average annual rounds played by memberships has climbed to more than 17,000 which equates to 43% of the total rounds played. Revenue from annual memberships has averaged approximately $144,000. This equates to an average cost of $8.23 per round compared to the current rate of $23- $27 per round for the daily rate payer or the resident who is an occasional player. In addition, the operational cost of the golf course is currently greater than $14.25 per round, based upon a maximum of 45,000 rounds per year. If the number of rounds played drops to 40,000, which frequently occurs, the cost of operations per round increases to $16.00. Based upon these figures the Golf Course is losing between $6.00 and $7.77 per round on annual memberships. This type of loss is the reason many municipally owned golf courses have significantly increased membership fees, switched to limited play memberships, or grandfathered them out. The current fee structure has remained in place as members have strongly and successfully opposed any significant increase or reduction in the amount of play allowed by the annual fee. The major concern expressed by members regarding the current and previous fee increases has been convenience, retaining affordability and better access to local players. Attachment #2 provides Council with a fee comparison spreadsheet of other golf courses in the area, which are Ukiah's primary competition and the courses most visited by local players on a regular basis. Council should note that daily fees provided in the spreadsheet range between 40% and 45% higher than Ukiah, annual memberships are between 65% and 170% higher, and only Ukiah offers senior discount categories for the annual memberships. The Men's and Women's Clubs have recommended that if memberships are retained, that the senior membership be eliminated as it is a compound discount. It was their opinion that even the proposed membership fees are an adequate discount and that to add a senior discount on top of that is unnecessary. Two of the three scenarios provided with this report include annual fees, however, the senior discount annual has been eliminated in all scenarios. It is important to note that all three options reflect consistent daily fees which have been reduced and include a senior discount. The first scenario does not include annual memberships. In order to be conservative on the revenue side, all of these scenarios reflect an approximately 20% to 25% reduction in play. As a means of a comparison, the current greens fee revenue projected for FY 04/05 is $506,000. Below is a discussion of the three fee proposals. Scenario # 1 This scenario establishes a simple daily rate fee schedule and eliminates annuals entirely. Scenario #1 reduces the existing daily rates and generates an estimated $646,600 from greens fees alone. This option is based on 33,000 rounds and represents an increase of $140,600 over projected greens fee revenues for FY 2004/05. The benefits of this scenario are its simplicity and it accomplishes the desirable goal of lowering fees while increasing revenues. Scenario #1: No Annuals, Monthly's, or Punch Cards Weekdays - Monday - Thursday Weekend = Friday - Sunday and Holidays Type Quantity Price Revenue 18 Holes Weekdays 5000 $20 $100,000 Weekends 10200 $25 $255,000 Seniors Weekdays 7000 $16 $112,000 Junior Weekdays 800 $12 $9,60C Twilight Weekdays 5000 $16 $80,00C Weekends 5000 $18 $90,00C Total Rounds: 33000 Total Greens Fee Revenue: $646,600 Scenario #2 This option provides the greatest flexibility by including both limited and unlimited memberships, however, that flexibility provides the lowest revenue of the three options. Staff is also concerned about revenue stability that this option could effect, as the greater the number of variations in the rate structure the greater the potential for annual fluctuations in revenue. The limited membership in this option would be valid Monday through Thursday and weekend play would be at the full daily rate. Projected revenue from this scenario is $626,501, which represents an increase of $120,501 over FY 04/05 greens fee revenue. Scenario #2: Annual Membership Limited/Unlimited Weekdays = Monday - Thursday Weekends = Friday - Sunday and Holidays Limited = Monday - Thursday Unlimited = Anytime Type Quantity Price Revenue 18 Holes Weekdays 2787 20 55740 Weekends 5653 25 141325 Seniors Weekdays 1754 16 28064 Junior Weekdays 544 12 6528 Twilight Weekdays 4764 16 76224 Weekends 4340 18 78120 Annuals Unlimited Junior 4 500 2000 Unlimited Adult 36 1500 54000 17,152 Unlimited Adult Couple 7 2000 14000 Rounds Limited Junior 11 300 3300 Limited Single 110 1200 132000 Limited Couple 22 1600 35200 Total Greens Fee Revenue: Assumptions: 1. 65/35 limited vs. unlimited split in current annual tickets 2. A 40% (708) shift in rounds from monthly's & punch cards to daily categories. 3. No decrease in total annuals. 4. A 2/6 transfer of weekday rounds to weekend play with the shift of Fridays to Weekend rates. 6265O1 Scenario #3 This scenario, which was preferred by the Men's and Women's Clubs, includes the same daily rate fees as Scenarios 1 and 2 but provides only unlimited annuals. The single adult category has been increased from $844 to $1,500 and the adult couple category has been increased from $1,266 to $2,000. After adjusting for an anticipated reduction in the number of memberships, the projected revenue from this scenario is $650,001 or $144,001 over FY 04/05 greens fee revenue. While this option does not include a reduced price limited membership it does provide unlimited memberships at prices well below any of the other regional courses. Also, this rate structure still offers a substantial discount for the regular golfer while still providing necessary compensation to the golf course. For example, at the proposed daily rate of $20 per round, an individual needs to play only 1.45 times per week or a total of 75 rounds per year, in order to pay for the annual. A couple only needs to play 100 times, or once per week per individual and the annual fee is covered. Scenario #3: Retain Some Annual Types; Decrease Daily Fees; Elimination of Punch Cards and Monthly's Weekdays = Monday - Thursday Weekend - Friday - Sunday and Holidays · ! · Type Quantity Price Revenue 18 Holes Weekdays 2787 $20 $55,740 Weekends. 5653 $25 $141,325 Seniors Wee kdays 1754 $16 $28,064 J u n ior !W eekd ays 544 $121 $6,528 Twilight Weekdays 4764 $16 $76,224 Weekends 4340 $18 $78,120 Annuals Unlimited Junior 10 $500 $5,000 Unlimited Adult 146 $1,500 $219,000 Unlimited Adult Couple 20 $2,000 $40,000 Total Greens Fee Revenue: $650,001 Assumptions: 1. A 40% (708) shift in rounds from monthly's & punch cards to daily categories. 2. A 2/6 transfer of weekday rounds to weekend play with the shift of Fridays to Weekend rates. Summary Below is a summary of the projected revenue increases of the three scenarios. Scenario Projected Revenue Proiected 04/05 Revenue Total Increase # 1 $646,600 $506,000 $140,600 #2 $626,501 $506,000 $120,501 #3 $650,001 $506,000 $144,001 Both Men's and Women's Clubs were most supportive of Scenario #3 as it provided the greatest amount of revenue while retaining a fair and equitable discount for the annual fee. Staff concurs with this position and also believes this option provides adequate stability to the rate structure while meeting the needs of both the golf course and the golf community. For these reasons, staff is recommending Council adopt the Resolution for Scenario #3. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION Scenario #1 Attachment RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADJUSTING FEES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah operates and maintains the Municipal Golf Course for the use of the Ukiah community and general regional area; and WHEREAS, the City Council may from time to time consider fee adjustments in order to continue operation of the Golf Course in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, said fee adjustments have been legally published and made available for public review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following rates are hereby established for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course' Fee Cate_~ory Daily Fees Monday - Thursday Daily Fees Friday-Saturday - Sunday A. 18 Holes $20.00 $25.00 Senior $16.00 N/A Junior $12.00 N/A B. Twilight $16.00 $18.00 (1:00 p.m. DST) C. Annual Private Cart Permit Fee $ 215.00 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES' ABSENT: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk LD/C Golffees05.#1 .Res 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION Scenario #2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADJUSTING FEES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah operates and maintains the Municipal Golf Course for the use of the Ukiah community and general regional area; and WHEREAS, the City Council may from time to time consider fee adjustments in order to continue operation of the Golf Course in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, said fee adjustments have been legally published and made available for public review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following rates are hereby established for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course: Fee Cate_~orv Daily Fees Monday- Thursday Daily Fees Friday - Saturday - Sunday A, 18 Holes $20.00 $25.00 Senior $16.00 N/A Junior $12.00 N/A B. Twilight (12:00 p.m. ST) (1:00 p.m. DST) $16.00 $18.00 C. Annual Greens Fees* Unlimited Adult Unlimited Adult Couples Unlimited Junior Limited Adult Limited Couple Limited Junior $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $ 500.00 $1,200.00 $1,6OO.OO $ 3oo.oo D. Annual Private Cart Permit Fee $ 215.00 *Annual Memberships are effective July 1 through June 30 of each year and due and payable prior to July 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk LD/C Golffees05.#2.Res 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION Scenario #3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADJUSTING FEES FOR THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah operates and maintains the Municipal Golf Course for the use of the Ukiah community and general regional area; and WHEREAS, the City Council may from time to time consider fee adjustments in order to continue operation of the Golf Course in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, said fee adjustments have been legally published and made available for public review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following rates are hereby established for the Ukiah Municipal Golf Course: Fee Cate_~ory Daily Fees Monday - Thursday Daily Fees Friday - Saturday - Sunday A. 18 Holes $20.00 $25.00 Senior $16.00 N/A Junior $12.00 N/A B. Twilight $16.00 $18.00 (1:00 p.m.) C. Annual Greens Fees* (Unlimited) Adult $1,500.00 Adult Couples $2,000.00 Junior $ 500.00 G. Annual Private Cart Permit Fee $ 215.00 *Annual Memberships are effective July 1 through June 30 of each year and due and payable prior to July 1. vote: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15___th day of June, 2005, by the following roll call AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk LD/C Golffees05.#3.Res Mark Ashiku, Mayor E Z Z Affachment # 0 0 0 ! o 8§~, ° ~, o ~' oo88 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 888 ° o~ 0 0 w · 0 0 00'10~ 000 "-~' '-~ 0 0'1 (,n 0'1 000 0'~ O~ O~ 000 000 0 0 0 O, 0 0 CO0 CO~O 1TEM NO. 8.~ DATE: June 15, 2005 A~iENDA ~UbtPlARY REPORT SUB3ECT: ADOPTZON OF REVZSED ORDZNANCE EXTENDZNG TEPlPORARY I~IORATORZUM ON OUTDOOR CULTZVA'I'ZON OF IqARZ.1UANA AND NEGATZVE DECLARATZON UNDER CALZFORNZA ENVTRONt4ENTAL QUALZTY ACT SUt4HARY: On May 4, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1067, imposing a 45 day moratorium on the outdoor cultivation of marijuana in the City. An ordinance adopting more permanent regulations on the cultivation of marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act was referred to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has conducted three public workshops and has formulated a recommendation for the City Council's consideration at its .1uly 6, 2005 meeting. The temporary moratorium expires on .1une 18, 2005, and therefore, staff recommends that the City Council extend the moratorium ordinance adopted on May 4 for 10 months and 15 days from .lune 18, 2005, or until May 3, 2006, as authorized by Government Code Section 65858(a). That ordinance can be repealed much earlier, when the City Council adopts a permanent ordinance. 1. ORDI'NANCE REVZSI'ONS Staff also recommends two modifications to the ordinance, which are contained in the attached proposed ordinance. Attachment i is the revised ordinance in redlined/strikeout format showing the changes from the original ordinance adopted on May 4. Attachment 2 is a clean version of the revised ordinance. Those changes delete Continued on Page 2 RECOf-tHENDED ACI'ZON: 1. Adopt Negative Declaration; 2. Adopt ordinance revising and extending moratorium on outdoor cultivation of marijuana ALTERNATTVE COUNC]:L POL]:CY OP'I/ONS: Require an environmental impact report, extend the moratorium without revising the ordinance, adopt different revisions to the ordinance. Citizen Advised: Notice published as required by Government Code §65090 Requested by: City Council Prepared by: David .1. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: Charley Stump, Planning Director Attachments: 1. Redlined revised ordinance, 2. Clean revised ordinance, 3. Proposed Negative Declaration Ca'dace Horsley~ity Manager June 9, 2005 Page 2 of 5 the limit of six plants per parcel and revise how compliance with all legal requirements is expressed in the ordinance. a. The six plant per parcel limit. ! recommend deleting the six plant per parcel limit in the interim ordinance for the following reasons. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77, enacted by SB 420, establishes limits, as stated below, on the number of plants that may be cultivated by a medical marijuana patient or his or her primary caregiver. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient. (b) !f a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs. (c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a). (d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining allowable quantities of marijuana under this section. !n addition, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, also added by SB 420, states: Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article. Unlike the proposed permanent ordinance, the moratorium ordinance adopts the six plant per parcel limit on all property anywhere in the City, except where cultivation is prohibited within 300 feet of schools. ! am concerned that the fiat limit throughout the City could be construed as preventing a qualified patient or primary caregiver from maintaining the number of plants authorized by H & S Code Section 11362.77. As so construed, the ordinance may not be "consistent with" SB 420 and, therefore, impliedly prohibited by H & S Code Section 11362.83. I recommend deleting the 6 plant per parcel limit to avoid this potential inconsistency. Since all cultivation must take place inside a greenhouse or secure structure, the elimination of the six plant limit should have minimal impact on public health and June 9, 2005 Page 3 of 5 safety, at least, for the limited time that the extended moratorium remains in effect. In my opinion, the limitation on cultivating marijuana within 300 feet of schools and the limitations in the proposed permanent ordinance are not inconsistent with SB 420, because these restrictions are addressed primarily to the location where marijuana may be grown in the City rather than imposing a City-wide restriction on the number of plants that may be maintained. ! don't read SB 420 as addressing these zoning issues. As a result, ! don't believe that zoning regulations which allow the maintenance of the number of plants authorized by H & S Code Section 11362.77 in some zoning districts but not others are inconsistent with SB 420. b. Revising reference to state and federal law. The 45 day moratorium ordinance stated in Section One, 1 that: "The cultivation of marijuana must be lawful under state and federal law." ! propose replacing that statement with two separate statements, as follows: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must comply with the Compassionate Use ACt of 1996 and Article 2.5, Chapter 6, Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11362.7, also known as SB 420. In adopting this moratorium, it is the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance be construed to allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, permits or allows persons to use marijuana for non-medical purposes or allows any activity related to the cultivation, distribution or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal. As the City Council knows the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Ra/ch v. Gonza/e$. That decision held in a 6-3 ruling that the federal Substances Control ACt could be enforced against a medical marijuana patient in California who was growing marijuana for her personal use without exceeding Congressional power under the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Court did not go so far as to declare Proposition 215 invalid under the Supremacy Clause, but the opinion does observe that: The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law will prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is 'superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants' however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. 21 U.S.C. Section 903, which is part of the Controlled Substances Act, provides: June 9, 2005 Page 4 of 5 No provision of this title [the Controlled Substances Act] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this title and that State law ~o that the two cannot consistently stand together. (Emphasis added.) ];t seems obvious to me that them is a positive conflict between the Compassionate Use Act and SB 420, on the one hand, and the classification of marijuana as a Schedule ! controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, on the other. At the same time, Article ITl, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution slates: An administrative agency . . . has no power: (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional; (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional; (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations. Tn Lockyer v. C/ty and County of San Franc/$co, 33 Cal. 4th 1055, the State Supreme Court held that this section applies to city and county officials. The recommended changes attempt to walk the tightrope between complying with state law and the state constitution without violating federal law which may preempt the state law. ]:t attempts to do this by making compliance with the directly applicable state law an express condition of growing marijuana in the City, while, at the same time, stating the City Council's intent that the ordinance is not intended to permit activity that is otherwise unlawful. The City Council is not undertaking to directly enforce federal law, but it is not intending to sanction conduct which would be unlawful, including under federal law. 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration under CEqA. Tn general, a moratorium that simply prohibits a use would be categorically exempt from CEQA requirements. However, the moratorium ordinance requires marijuana to be grown indoors. Tt could be argued that requiring marijuana to be grown indoors June 9, 2005 Page 5 of 5 might have adverse environmental impacts that should be evaluated through an initial study. Since it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that indoor growing could not have adverse environmental impacts, the planning department conducted an initial study, completed the environmental check list and has prepared a proposed negative declaration which concludes, after considering the possible environmental impacts, that the ordinance will not have adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration is attached as Attachment 3. Staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration. ORDINANCE NO. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE OUTDOOR GROWING OF MARIJUANA AND THE GROWING OF MARIJUANA WITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows. SECTION ONE. While this interim ordinance is in effect, it shall be unlawful and constitute a violation of this Ordinance for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided below: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must Deleted: be lawful under state and federal law Deleted: No more than six plants may be grown on a lot. 3. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. A tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance. Formatted: Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers Deleted: No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry.'[ 4. SECTION TWO. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions contained in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 22 of this Code, commencing with Section 9350. SECTION THREE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby finds as follows. 1. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council concerning a draft zoning ordinance that would regulate the cultivation of marijuana within the City of Ukiah, when grown pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and in compliance with applicable federal law. 2. The City Council anticipates that it could take several months before it receives those recommendations from the Planning Commission. 3. The unregulated cultivation of marijuana in the City of Ukiah has and will continue to create a serious public nuisance and serious public safety risks, particularly in residential areas. 4. This ordinance will become effective early in the growing season before marijuana can begin to create a public and attractive nuisance and harm the public safety. 5. If no action is taken, marijuana plants will likely mature to the point where they begin to cause these adverse effects. If detailed regulations are adopted after that, the difficulty of enforcement will be greatly compounded. 6. It is necessary, therefore, to adopt this moratorium ordinance on an urgency basis in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. SECTION FOUR. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more such provision be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION FIVE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately as an urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is repealed and of no further force or effect 45 days thereafter, unless extended as provided in Section 65858(a). Adopted on ,2005, at a duly called meeting of the City Council of the City of Ukiah by the following roll call vote: AYES: Deleted: May 4 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ATTACHMENT , ORDINANCE NO. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE OUTDOOR GROWING OF MARIJUANA AND THE GROWING OF MARIJUANA WITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows. SECTION ONE. While this interim ordinance is in effect, it shall be unlawful and constitute a violation of this Ordinance for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided below: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must comply with the Compassionate Use Act and Article 2.5, Chapter 6, Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11362.7, also known as SB 420. 2. No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry. 3. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. A tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance. In adopting this moratorium, it is the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance be construed to allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, permits or allows persons to use marijuana for non-medical purposes or allows any activity related to the cultivation, distribution or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal. SECTION TWO. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions contained in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 22 of this Code, commencing with Section 9350. SECTION THREE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby finds as follows. 1. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council concerning a draft zoning ordinance that would regulate the cultivation of marijuana within the City of Ukiah, when grown pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and in compliance with applicable federal law. 2. The City Council anticipates that it could take several months before it receives those recommendations from the Planning Commission. 3. The unregulated cultivation of marijuana in the City of Ukiah has and will continue to create a serious public nuisance and serious public safety risks, particularly in residential areas. 4. This ordinance will become effective early in the growing season before marijuana can begin to create a public and attractive nuisance and harm the public safety. 5. If no action is taken, marijuana plants will likely mature to the point where they begin to cause these adverse effects. If detailed regulations are adopted after that, the difficulty of enforcement will be greatly compounded. 6. It is necessary, therefore, to adopt this moratorium ordinance on an urgency basis in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. SECTION FOUR. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more such provision be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION FIVE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately as an urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is repealed and of no further force or effect 45 days thereafter, unless extended as provided in Section 65858(a). Adopted on June 15, 2005, at a duly called meeting of the City Council of the City of Ukiah by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk City of Ukiah CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Affachment # _ DATE: May 23, 2005 PRO3ECT SPONSORS: City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development PRO3ECT: Urgency Ordinance Imposing an Interim Moratorium on the Outdoor Growing of Marijuana and the Growing of Marijuana with 300 Feet of Schools. LOCAI'ZON: The urgency ordinance applies to all property with in the City of Ukiah REVIEW PERIOD: May 26, 2005 through .lune 14, 2005 PRO3ECT DESCRZP'lION: This is an extension of the moratorium on outdoor marijuana cultivation adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2005. The project would modify the ordinance and extend its operation for 10 months and fifteen days to April 28, 2006. During the term of the proposed interim ordinance it would be unlawful for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided as follows: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements. 2. No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry. 3. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. In addition, the interim Ordinance states that "a tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance." ENVIRONMENTAL SE'n'ING: The City of Ukiah is a dense urban environment with a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods. ENVZRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The In/t/a/Study prepared for the project analyzed a broad variety of environmental topics. No environmental impacts were identified. The project is not affected by nor will the project affect any hazardous waste disposal sites pursuant to section 65962.5 of the CA Government Code. FINDINGS SUPPORTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the local or regional environment; Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, will not result in short-term impacts that will create a disadvantage to long-term environmental goals; Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project, will not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and Based upon the analysis, findings and conclusions contained in the Initial Study, the project will not result in environmental impacts that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ~~.~.~~ng'l~ector/En~enta, STATEMENT OF DECLARATZON: After appraisal of the possible impacts of this project, the City of Ukiah has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and further, that this Negative Declaration constitutes compliance with the requirements for environmental review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study and all project documents may be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Commun Development, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 5/23/05 Coordinator Date ORDINANCE NO. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE OUTDOOR GROWING OF MARIJUANA AND THE GROWING OF MARIJUANA WITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF UKIAH. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows. SECTION ONE. While this interim ordinance is in effect, it shall be unlawful and constitute a violation of this Ordinance for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided below: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must be lawful under state and federal law. 2. No more than six plants may be grown on a lot. 3. No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry. 4. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. A tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance. SECTION TWO. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions contained in Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 22 of this Code, commencing with Section 9350. SECTION THREE. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby finds as follows. 1. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council concerning a draft zoning ordinance that would regulate the cultivation of marijuana within the City of Ukiah, when grown pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and in compliance with applicable federal law. 2. The City Council anticipates that it could take several months before it receives those recommendations from the Planning Commission. 3. The unregulated cultivation of marijuana in the City of Ukiah has and will continue to create a serious public nuisance and serious public safety risks, particularly in residential areas. 4. This ordinance will become effective early in the growing season before marijuana can begin to create a public and attractive nuisance and harm the public safety. 5. If no action is taken, marijuana plants will likely mature to the point where they begin to cause these adverse effects. If detailed regulations are adopted after that, the difficulty of enforcement will be greatly compounded. 6. It is necessary, therefore, to adopt this moratorium ordinance on an urgency basis in order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. SECTION FOUR. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason determined by a court to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more such provision be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION FIVE. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately as an urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and is repealed and of no further force or effect 45 days thereafter, unless extended as provided in Section 65858(a). Adopted on May 4, 2005, at a duly called meeting of the City Council of the City of Ukiah by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Redding AREA ENLARGED CITY OF' UKIAH NOT PUBLISHED DOCUMENT!!!! City of Ukiah INITIAL STUDY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS , Project Title: Urgency Ordinance Imposing an Interim Moratorium on the Outdoor Growing of Marijuana and the Growing of Marijuana with 300 Feet of Schools. . Lead agency name and address: City of Ukiah - 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 . Contact person and phone number: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development (707) 463-6203 4. Project location: Citywide . Project sponsor's name and address: City of Ukiah - 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 6. General Plan designation: N/A- Citywide 7. Zoning: N/A-Citywide Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 , Description of project: This is an extension of the moratorium on outdoor marijuana cultivation adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2005. The project would modify the ordinance and extend its operation for 10 months and fifteen days to April 26, 2006. During the term of the proposed interim ordinance it would be unlawful for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided as follows: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements, including the growing of not more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. A qualified primary caregiver shall maintain no more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. 2. No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry. 3. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. In addition, the interim Ordinance states that "a tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance." 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: N/A-Citywide 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Based on a review of the proposed Urgency Ordinance it is concluded that none of the following environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project: Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utility/Service Systems Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology / Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation / Traffic A discussion of the relationship between the proposed marijuana cultivation regulations and these environmental factors is provided in this document after the Environmental Issues Checklist. Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Am Potential to Degrade: 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO X al Short Term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environments one which occurs in a relatively, brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future). YES NO X Gl Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). YES NO X Dm Substantially Adverse: Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO X DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 3 Interim Urs;¢nc¥ Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eadier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is an extension of the moratorium on outdoor marijuana cultivation adopted by the City Council on IVlay 4, 2005. The project would modify the ordinance and extend its operation for 10 months and fifteen days to April 26, 2006. During the term of the proposed interim ordinance it would be unlawful for any person to grow marijuana within the City of Ukiah, except as provided as follows: 1. The cultivation of marijuana must in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements, including the growing of not more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. A qualified primary caregiver shall maintain no more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. 2. No outdoor marijuana cultivation shall be permitted. Growing marijuana shall only be permitted in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked and secure against unauthorized entry. 3. Marijuana shall not be grown on lots the exterior boundaries of which are within 300 feet of the exterior of any lot containing a school, whether public, private or chartered. In addition, the interim Ordinance states that "a tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows the lot of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used to grow marijuana in violation of this ordinance." Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CHECKLIST: I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and histodc buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Pdme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY-- Where available, the significance cdteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control distdct may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the dsk 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 X X X 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 dsks 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?. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS B Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X 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? Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant dsk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 10 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 11 X X X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X i) Expose people or structures to a significant dsk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X X X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 12 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X 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? X Xl. NOISE B Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 13 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 14 a) Would the project 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X X XlV. RECREATION- 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 15 X X a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle tdps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B Would the project: X X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 16 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X X X X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 17 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed urgency Ordinance allows a maximum total of not more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. A qualified primary caregiver shall maintain no more than six mature plants (flowering) or twelve immature plants (vegetative stage) per qualified patient. The proposed urgency Ordinance requires that they be cultivated in a fully enclosed greenhouse or structure that must be locked. It also requires the cultivation to be lawful under state and federal law, and that the plants cannot be grown on lots within 300-feet of any school. Based on these requirements, Staff is able to conclude that the regulations would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts: Aesthetics: The regulations require the growing activity to be conducted in a secure indoor location. Because the activity would not be visible to the public or surrounding neighborhood, it is concluded that it would not result in significant adverse impacts on the visual quality or aesthetics of a given area. Biological, Mineral, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources: The growing of marijuana in secure indoor locations would not cause an impact to biological, mineral, agricultural, or cultural resources, because none of these resources would be near the indoor growing activity. Furthermore, growing six marijuana plants in a secure greenhouse or other structure would be similar in terms of potential impacts to biological, mineral, agricultural, and cultural resources as growing six tomato or other vegetable plants. The growing of a small number of vegetable plants in a greenhouse is a common and ordinary accessory residential activity that does not have an impact on these environmental resources. Hydrology, Water Quality, Air Quality, and Geology/Soils: The growing of six marijuana plants in secure indoor locations would not cause an impact to Hydrology, Water Quality, Air Quality, and Geology/Soils, because the plants do not produce water or air pollutants, and would not involve the disruption of the geology or soils on a given site. The plants would typically be grown in containers in indoor locations, which would not disrupt surface water flow and drainage, and would not produce a discharge into creeks, streams or other waterways. The growing of six marijuana plants in a secure greenhouse would reduce or eliminate the apparent odor nuisance of ripening plants associated with outdoor growing, and therefore would reduce or eliminate this "air quality" nuisance impact. Recreation: The growing of six marijuana plants in a secure indoor structure would not adversely impact parks and recreation facilities because the activity is tantamount to growing a small vegetable garden, which is commonly viewed as a form of recreation and compatible with the recreation activities undertaken in parks and recreation facilities. Additionally, discussions with the Director of Community Services reveals that the growing of six indoor marijuana plants would not cause a need for additional parks and recreation facilities or a need for new employees and equipment. Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 18 Noise: It is not anticipated that the growing of indoor marijuana would cause noise levels to exceed the maximum thresholds contained in the Ukiah Municipal Code, because gardening is typically a quiet activity that does not involve the use of heavy equipment, amplified music/sounds, or involve loud shouting or other noise making activities produced by humans. Traffic: It is not anticipated that the growing of six indoor marijuana plants would cause significant increases in traffic, because this limited type of gardening is a private activity not involving or requiring large numbers of people or an increase in the use of cars or trucks. Population/Housing: It is not anticipated that the growing of indoor marijuana would cause population levels to change or cause impacts to the housing stock in the City because it is a limited private gardening activity that has no relationship to population or housing issues. Land Use: The growing of medical marijuana has recently increased in the City of Ukiah. Criminal activity associated with the activity has been reported, and complaints have been received about the noxious odor of ripening plants grown in back yards during in the fall season. The proposed regulations are intended to reduce or eliminate these land use issues by limiting the number of plants, requiring the plants to be grown in secure indoor locations, and prohibiting them from being grown in close proximity to schools. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The growing of six indoor marijuana plants (residence, shed, greenhouse, etc.) could involve the use of fertilizers and insecticides if organic gardening methods are not practiced. However, because of the small number of plants that can be grown, it is not anticipated that large amounts of fertilizers and insecticides would be used, and if these substances are carefully used according to the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations, no hazards to health would result. Public Services: Discussions with the Staff of the City Police, Parks and Recreation, Department of Public Works, and other service providers reveal that the regulations would not cause a need for additional personnel or equipment, or cause service levels to drop to unacceptable levels. The City Fire Department has expressed some concern about indoor marijuana growing and the potential increase in fire danger. However, because of the short-term nature of the urgency Ordinance, the Fire Chief has concluded that this potential impact is not deemed to be significant. Additionally, discussions with Samuel Oates, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal of the City of San Diego reveal that since that City formally prohibited outdoor marijuana growing, there have been six fires citywide attributed to indoor and outdoor marijuana cultivation (see attached email). It is reasonable to conclude that if a City the size of San Diego has had six fires attributed to marijuana cultivation over the past two years, the potential number of fires resulting from indoor growing in the City of Ukiah is not significant. Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 19 Utility Systems: As noted above, the growing and processing of six marijuana plants indoors could involve the use electricity if not conducted in a greenhouse. However, the City Director of Public Utilities has indicated that he does not anticipate that the regulations requiring marijuana plants to be grown indoors would cause a need for additional personnel or produce a shortage in the supply of electricity. The Director of Public Utilities has evaluated a "worst-case" scenario whereby the estimated 250 potential indoor gardens with six marijuana plants using high energy lighting systems would not adversely impact the city's electrical supply (see attached email correspondence from Bemie Ziemianek, Ukiah Public Utilities Director). CONCLUSION: Based on the discussion/analysis provided above, Staff is able to conclude that the Urgency Ordinance Imposing an Interim Moratorium on the Outdoor Growing of Marijuana and the Growing of Marijuana with 300 Feet of Schools could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project. MITIGATION MONITORING: No mitigation measures are recommended, therefore no Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program is required. Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 2O RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995 Mariiuana Patient Use and Cultivation Limits, Martin Martinez, The Lifevine Foundation. Growing Marijuana - Extensive Grow Guide, www. growing-marijuana.org Marijuana Lighting Systems- www. growkind.com Marijuana- Indoor Marijuana Cultivation -www.al b2c3.com/drugs/mjgrowl .html Emil correspondences between Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development and Bernie Ziemianek, Public Utilities Director, dated March 30, 2005 and April 5, 2005. Discussions with the following City staff and Agency representatives: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Kurt Latipow, Fire Chief Chuck Yates, Fire Marshal Larry DeKnoblough, Director of Community Services Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities Tim Eriksen, Senior Civil Engineer John Williams, Police Chief Chris Brown, Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Interim Urgency Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study May 2005 21 A call to the Metro Arson Strike Team ('MAST), indicates that there have been approximately 6 fire caused by the growing of marijuana inside and out side of structures. Samuel L. Oates, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 1010 2nd Avenue, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101-4970 619-533-4407 619-250-5458 (cell) 619-544-6806 (fax) SOates@sandiego. gov First In...Last Out >>> "Kurt Latipow" <klatipow@cityofukiah.com> ..~ Hi Jeff, how was the golf tournament? Hope this note finds you well and still having a good time. Our city is getting ready to out law outdoor growing of medical marijuana and we are looking for info from other cities. I understand that San Diego City eliminated out door growing about 2 years ago. My question, have you got any documentation that would indicate how many fires you have had that were attributed to indoor growing of marijuana~ Anything you can offer would be helpful. . Thanks Kurt I've stopped 137 spam and fraud messages. You can too! One month FREE spam and fraud protection at www.cloudmark.com <http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?vl&rc=> <http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?vl&rc=> Cloudmark SafetyBar spam! - Join the fight against ITEM NO. 8c DATE: 3une 15, 2005 A~iENDA ~UMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: CONSZDERA'TZON AND POSSZBLE EXTENSZON OF URGENCY ORDZNANCE ZHPOSZNG HORATORZUM ON NEW HARZ3UANA DI'SPENSARZES SUMMARY: At its May 18, 2005, meeting the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1069, imposing a q5 day moratorium on medical mari~uana dispensaries in the Gib/of Ukiah. The ordinance prohibits the establishment of new dispensaries or the expansion of the two known existing dispensaries. The City Council also referred to the Planning Commission the development of permanent regulations for medical mari~uana dispensaries. The 45 day moratorium will expire on .luly 2, 2005, before the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on .luly 6, 2005. It is virtually certain that the City Council will not be in a position to adopt permanent regulations before the expiration of the 45 day time period. For that reason, staff recommends that the City Council exercise its authority under Government Code Section 65858(a) to extend the moratorium for 10 months and 15 days to May 17, 2006. The staff does not recommend any changes to the existing ordinance, so the time extension can be approved by a motion and does not require the adoption of a new ordinance. The interim ordinance was determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to extend Ordinance No. 1069, enacting a temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, to 3uly 17, 2006. ALTERNATZVE COUNCTL POLTCY OPTZONS: Allow the ordinance to expire. Citizen Advised: Notice published as required by Government Code §65090 Requested by: City Council Prepared by: David ]. Rapport, City Attorney Coordinated with: N/A Attachments: Ordinance 1069 APPROVED: Candace"Horsley, Cit~anager ORDINANCE NO. 1069 AN URGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM NEW MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES FROM MAY 18, 2005 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY 2, 2005, UNLESS EXTENDED BY FURTHER ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY WHEREAS, 1. The voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, codified as Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (the "Compassionate Use Act"); and 2. The State enacted SB 420 to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act and to allow cities to adopt and enforce roles and regulations consistent with SB 420; and 3. In adopting this moratorium and provision for use permits, it is the council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance be construed to allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, permits or allows persons to use marijuana for non-medical purposes or allows any activity related to the cultivation, distribution or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal; and 4. The existing City zoning regulations do not provide for the location and regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries and such uses might be permissible in any zone that allows retail uses, drug stores, or medical usesi and 5. The City Council has directed City staff to prepare, and the Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation on, a proposal to regulate and/or prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries; and 6. Two medical marijuana dispensaries have already been opened in a commercial zoning district at the north end of the City; and 7. The United States Department of Justice's California Medical Marijuana Information Report has advised that large-scale drug traffickers have been posing as primary caregivers to obtain and sell marijuana. In addition, the State of California and the County of Mendocino have not yet implemented a statewide identification card program for qualified patients and their primary caregivers pursuant to SB 420. 8. A new medical marijuana dispensary could be established in the City, with or without prior inquiry to the City Planning Department and without the opportunity to exercise discretionary approval authority of such use; and 9. If additional medical marijuana dispensaries were allowed to be established without appropriate regulation, such uses might be established in areas currently unaffected by such uses that would conflict with the requirements of the General Plan, be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and if such uses were allowed to proceed as allowed under the current zoning, such uses could conflict with, and defeat the purpose of, the proposal to study and adopt new regulations regarding medical marijuana dispensaries; and 10. This urgency ordinance is adopted pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65858; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Finding, Declaration of Urgency. The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby finds and declares that there is a need to enact an urgency interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on all new medical marijuana dispensaries, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in this Ordinance. Two medical marijuana dispensaries have already opened in the City without any discretionary review. They are concentrated in a commercial zoning district in the north central portion of the City. The United States Department of Justice's California Medical Marijuana Information Report has advised that large-scale drug traffickers have been posing as primary caregivers to obtain and sell marijuana. In addition, the State of California and the County of Mendocino have not yet implemented'a statewide identification card program for qualified patients and their primary caregivers pursuant to SB 420. If additional medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to proceed without appropriate review of location and operational criteria and standards, the dispensaries could have potential adverse secondary effects on currently unaffected neighborhoods and the City that present a clear and immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The City finds that if establishment or development of medical marijuana dispensaries were allowed to proceed while the City is studying zoning proposals and regulations for this use, it would defeat the purpose of studying and considering zoning proposals to regulate and/or prohibit this use. Failure to enact this moratorium during the stated period may result in significant irreversible change to neighborhood and community character. Based on the foregoing, the City Council does hereby declare that this urgency ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare while considering revisions to the zoning regulations related to medical marijuana dispensaries. Section 2. Moratorium. (a) The City Council hereby declares a moratorium on any and all new medical marijuana dispensaries established on or after the effective date of this Ordinance and any and all modifications to existing uses to add or expand a medical marijuana dispensary. Co) During this moratorium and any extension of the moratorium, the establishment or expansion of an existing medical marijuana dispensary shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance and shall be deemed a violation of the City Zoning Ordinance. (c) A tenant or owner of real property in the City shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance, if he or she knowingly allows property of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used in violation of this ordinance. (d) During this moratorium and any extension of the moratorium, no building permit or zoning permit shall be issued for a medical marijuana dispensary. Section 3. Definitions. As used herein the term "Medical Marijuana Dispensary" or "Dispensary" means any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available to and/or distributed by or to two or more persons in the following categories: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identification card, in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. A "medical marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses are otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.'5 et seq. and the City of Ukiah City Code, including but not limited to the City's Zoning Code. Section 4. Conflicting Laws. During the continuation of the effectiveness of this ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall govern. If there is any conflict between the-provisions of this ordinance and any provision of the Ukiah City Code, or any City ordinance, resolution or policy, the provisions of this ordinance shall control. Section 5. Severabilit,y. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Interim Ordinance shall become effective and shall remain in force and effect from and including May 18, 2005, through and including July 2, 2005, unless extended prior to the expiration date. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF MAY 2005, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES' NOES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk /lC[ark Ashiku, Mayor AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a MEETING DATE: June 15, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUB3ECT: CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION CONCERNING FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER & POWER COMMISSION AND ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS SUMMARY: Attached as Attachment I is the latest (6-03-05) version of the agreement proposed by the Army Corp of Engineers for sharing the cost of studying the feasibility of raising the height of the dam at Lake Mendocino to increase the water storage capacity of the lake. This agreement is different from the one submitted to the City Council at its June 1, 2005, meeting. It contains a revised paragraph H, which reads as follows: H. The Sponsor shall be responsible for the total cost of developing a response plan for addressing any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767, (codified at 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9675), as amended, existing in, on, or under any lands, easements or rights-of way that the Government determines that the Sponsor must provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct representative to Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission to vote in favor of attached version of local sponsor agreement for Coyote Dam Feasibility Study. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: modifications to agreement. Direct representative to seek Citizens Advised: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Inland Water and Power Commission, Flood Control District David .1. Rapport, City Attorney Candace Horsley, City Manager 1..1une 3, 2005 Feasibility Study Agreement Approved: Candace Horsley, City Manager Staff Report Re: Feasibility Study Agreement Date: June 9, 2005 Page: 2 Such costs shall not be included in total study costs. In the event hazardous substances regulated under CERCLA are discovered, either party may terminate this agreement as provided for in Article X. This revised language would only obligate the local sponsor to prepare a response plan for addressing hazardous substances, if the contamination were on property the government determined that the local sponsor must provide for the project; not on property already owned by the government. I believe this adequately addresses the concern that the local sponsor would have to prepare the response plan for property for which the federal governmental is already responsible. I have circulated the agreement to lawyers for the Inland Water and Power Commission and the Flood Control District. If they have additional comments, I will report those to the City Council at its June 15, 2005, meeting. I discussed the agreement with David Doak, who is administering this project for the Corp of Engineers. The current plan is to submit this revised agreement for approval, if the local sponsor is satisfied. The risk is that the Corp begins to reallocate appropriated funds beginning at the end of June or the beginning of July. If it is uncertain whether a project will expend appropriated funds by the end of the fiscal year, funds allocated to that project may be reallocated to a project for which the funds can be spent by the end of the fiscal year. David Doak thinks it could take until the middle or end of July to get approval for this revision to the agreement. If there is not an approved contract with a local sponsor, Corp officials could determine that it is unlikely that the Corp funding appropriated for the Coyote Dam feasibility study will be expended by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Doak believes the funds can be spent by the end of the fiscal year, even if the local sponsor agreement isn't approved until the end of July. The Corp can charge expenses to the federal appropriation first and the matching funds from the local sponsor second. He believes that the $113,000 federal funds will cover the cost of a hydrological survey to determine the existing capacity of Lake Mendocino and topographic surveys. He believes this work can be completed in 2-3 weeks. He doesn't know whether these facts will convince his superiors not to reallocate the funds, but given the concern about paragraph H, taking this chance appears the only option. Affachment # __ J AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND THE MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION FOR THE COYOTE VALLEY DAM FEASIBILTY STUDY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day, of. ,2005, by and between the Department of the Army (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the District Engineer executing this Agreement, and the Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (hereinafter the "Sponsor"), W1TNESSETH, that WHEREAS, the Congress (Senate and/or House Committees) has authorized the Coyote Valley Dam, formerly the "Lake Mendocino Project" in Section 204 of the 1950 Flood Control Act (Public Law 516, 81 st Congress, 2n(l Session) for the initial stage of the plan; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a reconnaissance study of the deferred water supply elements of the authorized Federal project, and any additional flood control and sedimentation requirements, to determine Federal interest in potential improvements to the project pursuant to this authority, and has determined that further study in the nature of a "Feasibility Phase Study" (hereinafter the "Study") is required to fulfill the intent of the study authority and to assess the extent of the Federal interest in participating in a solution to the identified problem; and WHEREAS, Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, as amended) specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to the Study; WHEREAS, the Sponsor has the authority and capability to furnish the cooperation hereinafter set forth and is willing to participate in study cost sharing and financing in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor and the Government understand that entering into this Agreement in no way obligates either party to implement a project and that whether the Government supports a project authorization and budgets it for implementation depends upon, among other things, the outcome of the Study and whether the proposed solution is consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related l-and Resources Implementation Studies and with the budget priorities of the Administration; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement: A. The term "Study Costs" shall mean all disbursements by the Government pursuant to this Agreement, from Federal appropriations or from funds made available to the Government by the Sponsor, and all negotiated costs of work performed by the Sponsor pursuant to this Agreement. Study Costs shall include, but not be limited to: labor charges; direct costs; overhead expenses; supervision and administration costs; the costs of participation in Study Management and Coordination in accordance with Article IV of this Agreement; the costs of contracts with third parties, including termination or suspension charges; and any termination or suspension costs (ordinarily defined as those costs necessary to terminate ongoing contracts or obligations and to properly safeguard the work already accomplished) associated with this Agreement. B. The term "estimated Study Costs" shall mean the estimated cost of performing the Study as of the effective date of this Agreement, as specified in Article III.A. of this Agreement. C. The term "excess Study Costs" shall mean Study Costs that exceed the estimated Study Costs and that do not result from mutual agreement of the parties, a change in Federal law that increases the cost of the Study, or a change in the scope of the Study requested by the Sponsor. D. The term "study period" shall mean the time period for conducting the Study, commencing with the release to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District of initial Federal feasibility funds following the execution of this Agreement and ending when the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submits the feasibility report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for consistency with the policies and programs of the President. E. The term~'PMP" shall mean the Project.Management Plan, which is attached to this _ - { t~wa~: "esP- Agreement an~l-~h-i~fi ~h-aH-n-o~ b~ ~:6fisifie-r&i ~i-n~fin-g-~n- ~i~-h-e{ ~r~57 :~r~d i-s-s~fj~t'-tb-ch;~fi~e-lqy- -: -[I~l~l: Study the Government, in consultation with the Sponsor. F. The term "negotiated costs" shall mean the costs of in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsor in accordance with the,PMP. G. The term "fiscal year" shall mean one fiscal year of the Government. The Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. · ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES A. The Government, using funds and in-kind services provided by the Sponsor and funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States, shall expeditiously prosecute and complete the Study, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and Federal laws, regulations, and policies. I~l~at~l: H. The term "Coyote Valley Dam Projecf' shall mean the existing Federal project authorized pursuant to Section 204 of the 1950 Flood Control Act.~i B. In accordance with this Article and Article III.A., HI.B. and III.C. of this Agreement, the Sponsor shall contribute cash and in-kind services equal to fifty (50) percent of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. The Sponsor may, consistent with applicable law and regulations, contribute up to,~.Q pe_r_ce?_t 9_f_Stu_dy_C_qsts_~l-_qug_h_ti)e_ provision of in-kind services. The in-kind services to be provided by the Sponsor, the estimated ne~t~tf~dddt~(s-f~[ t-h-o~ ~e-r~i~s-, ~u~t] ~l{e- estimated schedule under which those services are to be provided are specified in the.~PMP. Negotiated costs shall be subject to an audit by the Government to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability. ~ - '( I}~g~l: 25 ~ ~ '~ []~l~at~l: PSP C. The Sponsor shall pay a fifty (50) percent share of excess Study Costs in accordance with Article III.D. of this Agreement. D. The Sponsor understands that the schedule of work may require the Sponsor to provide cash or in-kind services at a rate that may result in the Sponsor temporarily diverging from the obligations concerning cash and in-kind services specified in paragraph B. of this Article. Such temporary divergences shall be identified in the quarterly reports provided for in Article m.A. of this Agreement and shall not alter the obligations concerning costs and services specified in paragraph B. of this Article or the obligations concerning payment specified in Article III of this Agreement. E. If, upon the award of any contract or the performance of any in-house work for the Study by the Government or the Sponsor, cumulative financial obligations of the Government and the Sponsor would result in excess Study Costs, the Government and the Sponsor agree to defer award of that and all subsequent contracts, and performance of that and all subsequent in-house work, for the Study until the Government and the Sponsor agree to proceed. Should the Government and the sponsor require time to arrive at a decision, the Agreement will be suspended in accordance with Article X., for a period of not to exceed six months. In the event the Government and the sponsor have not reached an agreement to proceed by the end of their 6- month period, the Agreement may be subject to termination in accordance with Article X. F. No Federal funds may be used to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute. G. The award and management of any contract with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement, which obligates Federal appropriations, shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. The award and management of any contract by the Sponsor with a third party in furtherance of this Agreement which obligates funds of the Sponsor and does not obligate Federal appropriations shall be exclusively within the control of the Sponsor, but shall be subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations. H. The Sponsor shall be responsible for the total cost of developing a response plan for addressing any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767, (codified a.t .42 U.~S.C.S.ections 9_601-9675), a.s ame.nded,,_e_xis_ti_ngjn_,_q~ 9r_ _un_d_e_r_a_n~ 1 _an_d_s,_e_a_se_m_ e_n_ts_ rights-or way tl~at the tJovernment cleterm~nes that the Sponsor must provide for the construction, - 4' m~n~. to ~ r~u~ operation, and maintenance of the project,_ _Such costs shall not be included i~ ~-o-t:~l-s~u_-d~y_-c_-~t-s~- In the event hazardous substances regulated t~n-d-e~ (ZiEP,~2-~ hr-e-di~c-o-v~r~e~l~-~i[h-e~ ~tr~y terminate this agreement as provided for in Article X. ARTICLE 11I - METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The Government shall maintain current records of contributions provided by the parties, current projections of Study Costs, current projections of each party's share of Study Costs, and current projections of the amount of Study Costs that will result in excess Study Costs. At least quarterly, the Government shall provide the Sponsor a report setting forth this information. As of the effective date of this Agreement, estimated Study Costs are $5~798,000 and the Sponsor's share of estimated Study Costs is $2,889,000. In order to meet the Sponsor's cash payment requirements for its share of estimated Study Costs, the Sponsor must provide a cash contribution currently estimated to be $2,889,000. The dollar amounts set forth in this Article are based upon the Government's best estimates, which reflect the scope of the study described in therPMP, _ - ~ I~1~1: PSP projected costs, price-level changes, and anticipated inflation. Such cost estimates are-shbj-e$~-t-o- - - adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Sponsor. [ ~_. The Sponsor shall~rovide its cash contribution required under Article II.B. of this _Agreement iff h~:do-rdan-c~ ~Ti~-h- t-he ¥c~lidv~ih~ b~c;v~ ~i$fis-: .................................... 1. For purposes of budget planning, the Government shall notify the Sponsor by June 30 of each year of the estimated funds that will be required from the Sponsor to meet the Sponsor's share of Study Costs for the upcoming fiscal year. 2. No later than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled date for the Government's issuance of the solicitation for the first contract for the Study or for the Government's anticipated first significant in-house expenditure for the Study, the Government shall notify the Sponsor in writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for the first fiscal year of the Study. No later than thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, the Sponsor shall,veri.f~ to the satisfaction of the Government that the Sponsor has deposited the required funds in-~n-es~:/o-~7 ~: ~t-h~r-~c~r~t-a~c~p~b-l~ ~-dt-h~ ......... Government, with interest accruing to the Sponsor. ,_ ............................... 3. For the second and subsequent fiscal years of the Study, the Government shall, no later than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, notify the Sponsor in writing of the funds the Government determines to be required from the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs for that fiscal year, taking into account any temporary divergences identified under Article II.C. of this Agreement. No later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the required funds available to the Government through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. D~l~l: [SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MECHANISMS: [1] provide the Government the full amount of the required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, San Francisco" to the District Engineer. [2] [l~[Leg~d: [3] present to the Government an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Government for the required funds.] 4. The Government shall draw from the [,~scrow=account, provided _by the Sponsor such ~ ~ ~ -~ Oe.l~al~l: INDICATE MECHANISM: sums as the Government deems necessary to cover-tfi~ gp~n-sbr-'~ sha~ 6lrc-o-ntr-a~t-uhl ;~n~t-ih? - - - -"~, [. ill funds i21 house fiscal obligations attributable to the Study as they are incurred. ',','~ m~a: or ~er 5. In the event the Government determines that the Sponsor must provide additional '[ I~l~l-' [31 letter of credit] funds to meet its share of Study Costs, the Government shall so notify the Sponsor in writing. No later than sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of such notice, the Sponsor shall make the full amount of the additional required funds available through the funding mechanism specified in paragraph B.2. of this Article. C. Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Study Period or termination of this Agreement, the Government shall conduct a final accounting of Study Costs, including disbursements by the Government of Federal funds, cash contributions by the Sponsor, the amount of any excess Study Costs, and credits for the negotiated costs of the Sponsor, and shall furnish the Sponsor with the results of this accounting. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Government, subject to the availability of funds, shall reimburse the Sponsor for the excess, if any, of cash contributions and credits given over its required share of Study Costs, other than excess Study Costs, or the Sponsor shall provide the Government any cash contributions required for the Sponsor to meet its required share of Study Costs other than excess Study Costs. D. The Sponsor shall provide its cash contribution for excess Study Costs as required under Article II.C. of this Agreement by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, San Francisco" to the District Engineer as follows: 1. After the project that is the subject of this Study has been authorized for construction, no later than the date on which a Project Cooperation Agreement is entered into for the project; or 2. In the event the project that is the subject of this Study is not authorized for construction by a date that is no later than 5 years of the date of the final report of the Chief of Engineers concerning the project, or by a date that is no later than 2 years after the date of the termination of the study, the Sponsor shall pay its share of excess costs on that date (5 years after the date of the Chief of Engineers or 2 year after the date of the termination of the study). ARTICLE IV - STUDY MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION A. To provide for consistent and effective communication, the Sponsor and the Government shall appoint named senior representatives to an Executive Committee. Thereafter, the Executive Committee shall meet regularly until the end of the Study Period. B. Until the end of the Study Period, the Executive Committee shall generally oversee the Study ] consistently with the,PMP. C. The Executive Committee may make recommendations that it deems warranted to the District Engineer on matters that it oversees, including suggestions to avoid potential sources of dispute. The Government in good faith shall consider such recommendations. The Government has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the Executive Committee's recommendations. D. The Executive Committee shall appoint representatives to serve on a Study Management Team. The Study Management Team shall keep the Executive Committee informed of the progress of the Study and of significant pending issues and actions, and shall prepare periodic reports on the progress of all work items identified in the,PMP. E. The costs of participation in the Executive Committee (including the cost to serve on the Study Management Team) shall be included in total project costs and cost shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE V - DISPUTES As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to both parties. The parties shall each pay 50 percent of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. Such costs shall not be included in Study Costs. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the - - '{ ~: PSP parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Government and the Sponsor shall develop procedures for keeping books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total Study Costs. These procedures shall incorporate, and apply as appropriate, the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to state and local governments at 32 C.F.R. Section 33.20. The Government and the Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence in accordance with these procedures for a minimum of three years after completion of the Study and resolution of all relevant claims arising therefrom. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government and the Sponsor shall each allow the other to inspect such books, documents, records, and other evidence. B. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. Section 7503, the Government may conduct audits in addition to any audit that the Sponsor is required to conduct under the Single Audit Act Amendments of 19~...6., 31 U.S.C. Sections 7501-7507. Any such Government audits shall be conducted in _ - ~ n~w~a: 8~ accor-d~r~c-e~iil~/3b(,~rh~n-eh~ ~l~lfti-n~-S-tar~da~ds~a]l~t-tfi~ (:~s~ ~{i~i~[e~ ]r~ 0~1~ ~2-il:c-u~a~ ~o-.- - -- A-87 and other applicable cost principles and regulations. The costs of Government audits shall be included in total Study Costs and shared in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES The Government and the Sponsor act in independent capacities in the performance of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. ARTICLE VIII - OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT No member of or delegate to the Congress, nor any resident commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. ,ARTICLE IX - FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS ............................................ ~ o,~a: ,~on B~ In the exercise of the Sponsor's rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Sponsor agrees to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto and published in 32 C.F.R. Part 195, as well as Army Regulations 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army". ARTICLE X - TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. This Agreement shall terminate at the conclusion of the Study Period, and neither the Government nor the Sponsor shall have any further obligations hereunder, except as provided in Article III.C.; provided, that prior to such time and upon thirty (30) days written notice, either party may terminate or suspend this Agreement. In addition, the Government shall terminate this Agreement immediately upon any failure of the parties to agree to extend the study under Article II.E. of this agreement, or upon the failure of the sponsor to fulfill its obligation under Article llI. of this Agreement. In the event that either party elects to terminate this Agreement, both parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study and proceed to a final accounting in accordance with Article III. C. and III.D. of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, all data and information generated as part of the Study shall be made available to both parties. B. Any termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligations previously incurred, including the costs of closing out or transferring any existing contracts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION BY Philip T. Feir, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers San Francisco District BY Janet Pauli Chairperson Mendocino County Inland Water & Power Commission