Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-06 Packet CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 July 6, 2005 6:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Special Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2005 - Budget Workshop and Discussion of Proposed Ballot Measure b. Joint City Council & UVSD Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2005 c. Joint City Council & UVSD Meeting Minutes of June 1,2005 - Wastewater d. 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. 1 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. Report Regarding Grace Hudson Museum Securing the Services of David Smith as Computer Services Specialist For the Upcoming Fiscal Year b. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Results Special Municipal Election of June 7, 2005 Approval Of Publishing Services By Ukiah Daily Journal For Fiscal Year 2005/2006, In The Amount Of $5.42 Per Column Inch For The First Day And $3.76 Per Column Inch For Additional Days Report of Acquisition Of Professional Services From EBA Engineering For Environmental Services At The Corporation Yard In the Amount of $8,980.20 And Approve Budget Amendment In The Amount of $8,980.20 Report Regarding Grace Hudson Museum Securing the Services of Keith White Wolf James as Native American Educator For the Upcoming Fiscal Year C, d. e, 6. 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. 1 PUBLIC HEARING (6:45 P.M.) a. Adoption of Negative Declaration and Introduction of Ordinance Adding Section 9254, Entitled "Marijuana Cultivation" To Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code al UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Utilizing An Alternate Date or Time For Proclamations and Informational Items - Councilmember McCowen Sm C. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion Regarding Fence at Gibson Creek- Phil Baldwin b. Discussion Regarding Formula Business Ordinances- Phil Baldwin Appointment of City Council Representative to Mendocino Transit Authority Discussion of City Council Representative to the Library Advisory Board Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding For Employee Bargaining Unit - Management 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 13. ADJOURNMENT The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 Pre-Budget Workshop The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Meeting on February 28, 2005, the notice for which being legally noticed, at 3:40 p.m. at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, Chenen Blanc Room, 200 South School Street, Ukiah, CA. 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin. Mayor Ashiku arrived at 4:04 PM. Staff present: City Manager Horsley, Finance Director McCann, Planning Director Stump, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek, and City Clerk Ulvila. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is a matter of business on the agenda that you are Interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. Jf 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 53n (10)minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in whicl~ the subject is not listed on the agenda. No comment from the audience. 3. PRESENTATION BUDGET FORECAST MODEL~ ALTERNATIVE FORECASTS AND RESPONSES TO COUNCIL -QUESTIONS City Manager Horsley reviewed the format for the workshop, directing Councilmember's attention to the supporting documentation. Department Directors will present an overview of their individual budgets. Mendocino Transit Authority requested to be moved forward on the Agenda; no action was taken by the Council. Finance Director McCann stated he recently attended the Annual California Society of Municipal Finance Officer's Conference, noting that the presenters were optimistic that the State will not shift taxes from cities and local government for possibly, the next two Fiscal years. Finance Director McCann presented a brief Power Point presentation and reviewed the forecast model highlights, advising that the primary focus is on the General Fund at this time. Projected revenue calculations include the 1/2% sales tax increase and 2% growth. Interest on the City's investment earnings is estimated at 2.5%. Expenditure History A PowerPoint presentation was provided by Bernie Ziemianek, Director of Public Utilities, reviewing operating reserves, expenditures and the cost of operating the department; reviewed rate stabilization and bond payments; reviewed the 2005 Energy Balance, Natural Gas Spot Prices by, and Ukiah Resource Net Energy Balance, stating that the City needs to plan for the future while taking into consideration problematical situations such as endangered species, high flows in the Lake Mendocino Hydro chamber, etc., and effect on daily operations. Special Ukiah City Council Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 1 of 4 City Manager Horsley stated an electric utility workshop will be conducted within the next few months to discuss utility issues. Total Police and Fire Expenditures Chief Latipow stated that revenue projections assume the ~% sales tax increase. Chief Latipow discussed the history of the ambulance service, cost of paramedics, billing, education/certification - recertification and attendance at conferences, etc., stating that fees should pay for the services delivered. Chief added that the ambulance provides services outside the city under mutual aid. Discussion followed regarding whether the projections are based on anticipated billing collections. Chief Latipow stated that the proposed increase in fees woUld result in an additional $72,000 annually. Chief Latipow reviewed costs for the fire station, utilities, including soft costs and reiterated that these costs are projected within the Firefighter budget; the ambulance budget and associated costs are separately funded. Capital Expenditure Forecast Finance Director McCann recapped projects as identified within Attachment 1 - stating these figures are estimation. Forecast (Reports and Graphs) PowerPoint and oral presentations provided detailed description of the graphs and reports contained within Attachment 2, which is organized into four main groups of departments: Public Safety, Public Works, Community Services and General Government. The presentation covers period 1996 to 2035, captured in five-year averages, with the inclusion of the 1/2% sales tax beginning with 2006 and continuing to 2035. General Fund History and Forecast in.Five-Year Averages Attachment 3 identifies the Total General Fund Expenditures, broken down into the four main groups of departments with the addition of Fixed Asset Replacement, for pedod 1996 to 2035 and the General Revenue breakdown including the 1/2% sales tax, beginning with FY 2006. Worst Case Forecast Attachment 5 provides assumptions reflecting no sales tax increase or other new funding, eliminates new public safety positions and all capital expenditures. Reconciliation of City Accounting System, Audited Statements and Budget for Year Ended June 30, 2004 Attachment 7 provides an overview of the FY 04-05 year-end budget, resulting in an estimated beginning balance for FY 05-06 of $45,785,734 and Operating Reserve Account of $15,882,670. Having completed review of the proposed draft FY 05-06 Budget, Councilmembers discussed whether to move Mendocino Transit Authority forward on the Agenda. Due to the majority of the audience being present to hear Agenda Item #4 regarding a ballot measure to increase the sales tax by 1/2%, the Agenda remained as posted. Special Ukiah City Council Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 2 of 4 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REQUEST THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONDUCT A SPECl/t.L_ MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ON TUESDAY~ JUNE 7~ 2005~ AND TO CONSOLIDATE SAID ELECTION WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION HELD ON THF SAME DAY Public Comment: Members of the audience stepped forward to voice their opinion regarding the proposed ballot measure. Primary focus was on a five year sunset clause versus a ten year sunset clause. Councilmembers responded by stating recruitment of new personnel is difficult if funding is only secure for five years; the City then becomes only a training ground until the employee moves to another employer offering higher salary and benefits. Discussion continued regarding the need to contact the County to confirm the City is receiving its share of property tax proceeds. The matter of an advisory vote was discussed. Supporting documentation provided to the Councilmembers included five alternatives. Discussion followed with Councilmembers reviewing each alternative and sharing comments and concerns. Councilmember McCowen suggested changing the wording within Alternative #2 to read, "Should additional funding for public safety, including police, fire and emergency medical service be first priority"? NFS Baldwin/Rodin to include Advisory Alternate #2, as stated by Councilmember McCowen, on the Ballot Measure. AYES: Counciimembers: McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Crane ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried Mayor Ashiku polled Councilmembers to obtain consensus on the sunset clause; majority favodng a "15 year sunset". Mayor Ashiku stated he will support the 15 year sunset clause stating that Council should work diligently with staff; staff to reduce or eliminate waste and improve efficiency. Councilmembers called for a Special Meeting to be held on March 2, 2005 at 6:00 PM. to consider adoption of an ordinance imposing Transactions and Use Tax to be administered by the State Board of Equalization and changing Section 1749 "Repeal of Tax" to be repealed ten years after the operative date. Recess from 7:02 PM Reconvened at 7:14 PM Special Ukiah City Council Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 3 of 4 M/S Rodin/Baldwin Adopting Resolution 2005-35, requesting the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors to request the County Clerk to conduct a Special Municipal election of the City of Ukiah on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, and to consolidate said election with any other election held on that same day. AYES: Councilmembers: McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin,Crane, Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried 5. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR MENDOCINO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA) INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY City Manager Horsley discussed the staff report which describes the history of MTA and Railroad Depot site. Discussion followed by both Council members, Jim Mastin and Bruce Richard, MTA General Manager, providing a history on MTA's previous intent to relocate to this site as well as current issues such as realignment of Leslie Street and Hospital Drive in order to improve traffic circulation, clean up of the property and easement issues. Councilmember Rodin reported that at the last Northern California Railroad Association (NCRA) she attended, the Board requested City Council opinion in regard to the matter. At the same time, NCRA would put the matter on its next agenda and report on the City Council's feedback to MTA's proposal. The City should continue to have the traffic engineers pursue the proposed MTA Standley Street Project. Consensus of Councilmembers and staff was to pursue the railroad depot development and direct staff to identify those issues related to the project. A plan to clean up the area needs to be developed. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Special Ukiah City Council Meeting February 28, 2005 Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Special Joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council And Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3b The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Joint Meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) on May 18, 2005, 2004, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, RodiB, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. Staff present: Water-Utilities/Project Engin.~iiii?;;Burck, Wastewater Treatment Manager Gall, City Manager Horsley, Ci~ii~rney Rapport, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek, and City Clerk Ulvi!~iii~iii~h~:iii Valley Sanitation District Board Members present: wattenb:u~'~i !e.. District Board Chairman Delbar absent. Also present: Chie[::~Puty Coun'{~i~unsel Zotter and Deputy Clerk of the Board/District Secretary~:~,,~!~"i ..... :":~:~?ii?~?~i!~i?~i:,??;i;~:~,~::~ 4: 05 p.m.: Adj o u r n e d to C I o se d S e ss o~',~',i~i',i~i~ ....... ,,~¢i~',i~ii;,,?,~i;,~ ~'~.~?: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL ~.NSEL J:~ G LITIGATION River Watch v. City of Ukia~~~.! Distr~~u~, Case No. C~4 ~4518 Council conferred with nse:~d ~ ~ :~{~ken. 4:10 p.m.: Reco~ ::~::~:: .... . 2a. Di,, ect gtc a Presentation by Bartle Treatment Plant Upgrade B, Pri D'6~,,~::..Dove and Financial Analyst Tatiana Olea provid~,ii~. Power pre~:~tation. Items discussed included the Sewer Revenu~'~i':i~:~i~nd at $67.8 million, structuring the bonds, disposal of treated wa. er dud'?summer months, discharge and percolation ponds, the recyclination ~iiiii~d summarized the alternatives presented in the Staff City Manager Horsley provide historical data concerning the rate structure, infrastructure improvements needed in the future, and financial projections. Public Utilities Director Ziemianek discussed the timeline for construction and noted that if the current construction cycle is missed, the construction of the project would be delayed and the cost of materials for construction may increase. UVSD Chairman Delbar recommended the UVSD review the data presented and schedule another meeting with the City Council soon. Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 18, 2005 Page 1 of 2 Director Wattenburger stated he preferred Option #3 with the recycling component included. After further discussion, it was decided that Staff, in cooperation with Bartle Wells Associates, would provide information considering a longer implementation period of five years instead of four as well as further information concerning commercial customers. It was noted that the information provided to customers should be user friendly, easy to understand, and provide examples of businesses in various categories. There was also discussion concer~i~g additional funding for the project to study wastewater reuse and recycling Councilmember McCowen inquired if the UVSD i~ agreeable to include the recycling study. UVSD Chairman Delbar ~r :nd~ii~at he is inclined to support the recycling study; however, he thin~he cost is '~,i,,~nd would like to It was the consensus of those present~'~:~i~urther.:~.ii~rmation pro by Staff and the consultant to Council and the U ::~=:.~i~"advance of the next joint meeting to allow sufficient time f~[jeview of t There being no further business, t~me~::~::~ii~:'~'~: ~ adJ ed at 6'13 p m Marie Ulvila, City~ "~'~iiii~iiiii,,:,~ Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District May 18, 2005 Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL Special Joint Meeting of the Ukiah City Council And Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Wednesday, June 1,2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Special Joint Meeting with the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District (UVSD) on June1, 2005, the notice for which had been legally noticed and posted, at 4:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, Rod 4:46 p.m.) and Mayor ^shiku. Staff present: W~ Burck, Wastewater Treatment Manager Gall, City Ma Rapport, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek, and Sanitation District Board Members present: Board Chairman Delbar was absent by Mendocino County Chief Deputy Coun= Board/District Secretaries Rau and Park, Baldwin, (arrived at ject Engineer -Iorsley, City Attorney Ulvila. Ukiah Valley and Crane. District Also present: and De Clerk of the 2. WASTEWATER WORKSHOP 2a. Rate Structur~ MailinQ of Proposition Proposed Wastewater U Finance Director McCann provicl presentation that re a culm by Bartle Wells 1 Sanitation Distri~ Auth~ an Mana er to For hedule Public He; ' on to expect from the from the presentation city Council/Ukiah Valley Doug Dove, purpose UVSD for City Pri lic hear accordanc~ il/UVSD pL Wells Associates, noted that the proval from the City Council and the alom mailing notices to all affected parties ~nd issues, sewer rate increases, and connection ition 218, and to follow this step with the Joint 45 days later, on July 20, 2005. Discussion to the Attorney Ra Caldwell, Doug City Council and UVSD Board members with regard Manager Horsley, Finance Director McCann, City assistance from Timothy Banyai of Brown and and Tatiana Olea of Bartle Wells Associates, provided clarification with regard to reserves, projected growth rate, rate increases planned for other cities, future Wastewater Treatment Plant maintenance costs, and capital improvement funding, including projects such as infiltration and inflow (l&l). Also discussed were the differences between residential and commercial rate calculations, and addressing matters raised by the UVSD at the prior joint meeting with the City Council. 3c Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District June 1,2005 Page 1 of 2 Councilmember Crane and Director Wattenburger expressed concern that the proposed structure may not be sufficient to fund future Wastewater Treatment Plant maintenance, including infiltration issues. Recessed: 6:02 p.m. Reconvened: 6:04 p.m. M/S Rodin/McCowen to increase the proposed rates $2 each year for the years 2005-2009. M/S Rodin/McCowen amending the motion to increase for the $2 increase to 2010; carried by the folio Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, a~ Councilmember Baldwin. ABSTAIN: None. AB date range ,oll call vote: AYES: ,r Ashiku. NOES: M/S Rodin/McCowen approving prol City Manager to arrange for mailing of the proposed rate changes, carried Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodir None. ABSTAIN: None. AB None. structures a g the s and schedule pu ' s on roll call AYES: Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Ukiah Vall~ M/S Crane/Wattenberger the City Manager to on the proposed UVSD Board m, None. Sanitation Distri~ for ~d Crane. jctures and authorizing .chedule public hearings g roll call vote: AYES: NOES: None. ABSTAIN: 3. ADJO Th, ess, the m6 ing was adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Marie City Clerl Joint Meeting of the City Council And the Ukiah Valley Sanitation District June 1,2005 Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE UKIAH CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 The Ukiah City Council met at a Regular Meeting on April 20, 2005, the notice for which being legally noticed, at 6:30 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor=~ u. Staff present: Community Services Director DeKnoblough, City Manager 'y, Associate Planner Lohse, Finance Director McCann, City Attorney Rappo~iiii~ning Director Stump, Police Chief Williams, Public Utilities Director Ziemianek,~iii~!i~{~i!~[grk Ulvila. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Counc~ ~ ~'~dge of Allegi ~i',i!?~i iii i~i~ 3. PROCLAMATIONS ...... '=:~'=~ii~iiiiii!i!iiiil~:~: 3a. Workers Memorial Day in the City of Mayor Ashiku read the Proclamati~ 2005 as Workers Memorial Day in the City of Ukiah in ed, and disabled on the job. Terry Poplowski thanked the City fo honor of workers. Plaza for this event in 3. PROCLAMATI¢ 3b. Pi Vice-Mayor Baldwi Ukiah and urged all community, the Third nating April 2005 as Poetry Month in poetry readings throughout the ram at the Ukiah Library, and enjoy :ival on May 1, 2005 at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center, Linda ~iii,~====,City of,,Ukia~iiii!~et ,, ate, invited everyone to the ukiaHaiku Festival. She read t~~==em, Mount~iSongs . Me~btes ol January 5, 2005 Cit~ Clerk HIvila ad~:' that a potion of tho minutos that includos discussion of tho fil~ for tho Orr Crook Brid~o is boin~ prosontod to Council for approval. Tho minutos for tho la, or pa~ of tho mootin~ will bo prosontod to Council at tho mooting. It was the consensus of Council to defer the minutes to the next Council meeting when the completed set of January 5, 2005 minutes could be presented to Council. 5. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Ashiku read the appeal process. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 1 of 8 M/S Baldwin/Rodin approving items "a" through "g" of the Consent Calendar as follows: a. Approved Disbursements for Month of March 2005; b. Rejected Claim for Damages Received From Wilma Lucille Pryse and Referred to Joint Powers Authority, Redwood Empire Municipal insurance Fund; C, e. go Approved Notice of Completion for Street Striping 2005, S Adopted Ordinance No, 1066 of the City Council of the Various Sections of the Ukiah City Code Cont~ Entitled: '~Vater; Authorized Execution of Amendment to the an Amount Not to Exceed $191,109.35 fl Corrective Action Plan at the Cor Amendment In The Amount Of $149,109 Awarded Bid to Lake County Electric for the for the Construction of a Third Field at Not to Exceed $18,864; Approved Modifications to vised ,'ification No. 04-09; Ukiah Amending vision 4, Chapter 1, and Engineering in of the Interim Budget urchase of Fixtures Complex in )unt Support Positions. Motion carried by the following McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and ABSENT: None. ~mbers Crane, 5S: ;. ABSTAIN: None. 7. AUDIENCE Daniel De la Peza April 15, 2005 .h, read attel at a ITEMS Iso read a letter into the record dated Commission meeting. Maryann commen~ an 10 minutes per person for the public Igreen's project. am 8a. N~ FY Police Chief (SLESF) Grant Office Assistant, upgrades. HEARIN~ of Aw for of al Law Enforcement Services Fund~ ~blic Safety (COPS) Grant in the Amount of $1007000 d the State Law Enforcement Services Fund one part-time Evidence Technician, one part-time Front services, patrol equipment, and computer equipment PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:55 p.m. No public comment received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:55 p.m. M/S McCowen/Rodin authorizing Police Department spending plan for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 for the SLESF Grant, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. al PUBLIC HEARING Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 2 of 8 8b. Discussion and Action On Krause/Toms Appeal of Planning Commission Conditional Approval of the Marin Ventures/Wal.qreen's Store on East Perkins Street Planning Director Stump explained that on March 23, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a lengthy public hearing and after considerable dialog, adopted a Negative Declaration and conditionally approved a Site Development Pe for a Walgreen's Store on East Perkins Street. project, Mr. Albert Krauss and Commission's action, expressing concerns about the redwood trees on the site. Mr. Michael Toms, Two speakers at the public h~ file( Associate Planner Lohse described the pro Report. He also provided an overview of the an lighting, project issues and Planning Commi= by the Krauss/'l'oms appeal. ect, as design, , in who opposed the appeal to the and the loss of to th~ in the Staff raised PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:05 Members of the audience that spoke Michael Toms (appellant), Maryann Harrison, Ken Anderson, dolph, and Grant Leschin (re rin Ve~ incl Krauss (appellant), Poplowski, Dale Jack Cox, Russ Tow, Issues or concerns,: redwood trees on trees in the parking lot traffic safety, incor housin~ desk the overall Mr. Grant :hin, project desig c design into a project. A certifk recommendation th; by ncluded retaining and maintaining the i.ng of':~' structure, signage, providing shade g spaces, the need to install a East F ~treet and Hospital Drive for pedestrian ~ofing materials, signature on the proposed tower, the design, incorporate a solar element into the structure. repre,' ~ting Marin Ventures for the applicant, discussed the and explained that they are trying to incorporate the since the railroad depot is across the street from their was hired by Marin Ventures and it was their redwood trees would not survive the renovation activities at the site and would create a liability for the applicant. Upon questioning by the City Council, Mr. Leschin stated that the applicant is agreeable to contribute financially toward a traffic signal because of their concern for pedestrian safety while crossing Perkins Street. He also noted the applicant would work toward rectifying the concern regarding back lighting of the mortar and pestle sign in the tower. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:17 p.m. Discussion by Council and Staff ensued with regard to the issues raised during the Public Hearing concerning the design of the proposed structure. Other issues Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 3 of 8 discussed were the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on the project, working with the International Dark Sky Association lighting standards, and comparing the applicant's signage to other signage of businesses in the community that recently completed a renovation. There was considerable discussion concerning the redwood trees on the site and whether they are healthy, and how many could be retained by the applicant. :~::,~:~,;~,~, Councilmember Baldwin requested that formula busine ?'be discussed at the Council's June 1, 2005 meeting. He voiced his support t~ .... the trees on the site, despite the report submitted by the arborist hired by the a~ii iiiiiiii?~,~::~ ...... Councilmember Rodin recommended Council re,. :~..~i':~.~ the City"~il~?iiiii~::'~"~. ~ntown Master Plan. She discussed Ukiah's Streetscape Guic and the Ukiah G~'~' ~ Plan. She provided Council with photos of other rail'oad:~ and the design '~!i~al reen's is not unique nor does it contain qualities assoI . She pr~':~red that the redwood trees remain on the site. Councilmember McCowen re~ to allow the applicant to incorporate questioned some of the comments m concern with liability issue e property. ,ntinued to the next meeting [ions into its design. He He noted his r an entire tree fall on the It was the consenl applicant time to mc the City Council that in~ · Elim · CI · the Cou !1 to con§~e the matter for two weeks to allow the reg~ii~o suggestions and inquiries made by and tower sign tnd increase the eaves of reduce its visual impacts or other design elements ing the possi~= windows · A roofscape ~ide at appearance · AII~ ;et for sh; ~nder the awnings · Incor the awning · Reduce th~ le and not have the sign cover the length of the building · Get g number of lights and that they be pointed downward and the bulbs nof:'be visible · Staff to work with the applicant on different color schemes as per recommendations by Judy Pruden · Consult with the City's arborist regarding the redwood trees · Continue the matter to the May 4, 2005 City Council meeting and staff to work with the applicant to resolve these issues M/S McCowen/Rodin to continue the item to May 4, 2005 to allow the applicant to work with staff to incorporate changes as suggested by staff and to secure a second opinion on the redwood trees from the City's arborist; carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 4 of 8 Recessed: 9:15 p.m. Reconvened: 9:30 p.m. 8c. Discussion and Direction Regarding The Planning Permit Processing and Cost Recovery Study .... ~.~ Planning Director Stump discussed his Staff Report with Cou~,~at included a 100% cost recovery alternative, minor permits, General Plan ..... ~e/Maintenance Fee, Appeal Fee, and how the Planning Permit processing can ~oved. Public Hearing Opened: 9:36 p.m ...... .......... ~=:'~ii!iiiiii~.ii!!!ii!?;=~:,~,:= .... Judy Pruden addressed the Council and advo( 100% cost reC;i~,~=of Planning Permit fees. , ~=' '=~'~i~iiiiii!iiiii?,;~ Becky Tune expressed concern for fees relate by the public as well as developers. · Public Hearing Closed: 9:40 p.m. A consensus of Council Staff Report, items 1 information regardin! "affordable hou:' for identi' to implement a fee ;e. with :1 on page 15 of the City of Petaluma for applicants, that #5 be designated for d directed Staff to prepare a resolution 8d. Ado Fire 1, iscussion the .lution for Cz For Ambulance Services Provided that the proposed fees be in place by July ard to the proposed cost increases proposed in ~=ration. Public Ht I p.m. No public comm, ed. Public Hearing p.m. M/S Rodin/Baldwin adopting Resolution 2005-45 adopting fees for ambulance services provided by the Ukiah Fire Department, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Crane, McCowen, Rodin, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Report on Regulation of Skateboards in Shopping Centers and Other Privately Owned Commercial Areas City Manager Horsley noted that Rod Johnson, owner of Rod's Shoes in the Pear Tree Shopping Center, wrote a letter, dated February 25, 2005, describing the impact of skateboarding on his business, other businesses in the shopping center, patrons and shopping center property. He requested the City Council enact an ordinance allowing Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 5 of 8 property owners to prohibit skateboarding at the shopping center. Currently, the City's ordinance on skateboarding involves a prohibition only on certain designated public properties. Rod Johnson discussed the problem with vandalism in the Pear Tree Shopping Center due to skateboarding and requested the City Council adopt a Ordinance allowing property owners to prohibit skateboarding in the Shopping Cenl M/S Baldwin/Rodin directing Staff to prepare an ordin~ regarding prohibiting skateboarding on certain following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers MayorAshiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. None AE e the City's policy carried by the in, Baldwin, and None. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10b. Discussion and Possible Dire{ Ordinance Regulating Marijuana Councilmember McCowen request, ;ouncil ado marijuana cultivation in the City lim growini He submitted letters into the record ~ld of his recommendation. Dane Wilkins, Director form a citizen's a~ community. lern ress Ordinance regulating son is currently in progress. Holtkamp in support uested the City Council safety issues and the needs of the Peter Coleman, expressed issues, i~ how marl g raided and ~wsky, and Ruth Coleman 'odor of plants grown outdoors, public safety ~ana illegally, safety of children in neighborhoods, and rings a criminal element to neighborhoods when ',MRS. between the City Council, City Attorney Rapport, regard to the Compassionate Use Act, public safety Considera~iii~:'i~cussed oc~ed and Police :.,:William~iii~th issues, and enfo~ nt.. :s. The majority of the Ci'~i~uncil directed staff to prepare an ordinance stipulating that a maximum of six indoor plants or six plants grown in a greenhouse per parcel be allowed in the City Limits. 10c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Public Hearin_q$ (McCowen) and/or Letter of Support For Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act (Rodin) Councilmember McCowen explained that at the last Council meeting, he requested that the Council consider a request for local public hearings for the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act HR 233. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 6 of 8 Councilmember Rodin advised that at the last Council meeting, she requested that the City Council consider sending a letter of support for HR 233, reaffirming the action taken by the City Council in November 2001 in the form of a resolution supporting of the bill. Councilmember Baldwin stated that he traveled to Washington, D.C. to lobby for this bill and supported Councilmember Rodin's recommendation .... ~,, ..... Members of the audience that spoke to the issue (Laytonville), David Drell (Willits), Linda Gray (Ukiah), Lynda McClure (Ukiah) , Jan Moore (Ukiah), Drell (VVillits), Peter Steele (Branscomb), David Road), Val (no last name given) and Heidi Di, Thompson). Ryan, Jon Spitz unty) Estok Menton ~ms (Willits), Ellen berty (Boonville ressman Discussion followed with regard to Congressman Thompson's office could condu~ congressional field hearings. ~ether hall meetings instead of M/S McCowen/Rodin directing support for HR 233 in the form of a vote: AYES: Councilmt NOES: None. ABSTAIN on of the City Council's the following roll call and Mayor Ashiku. 9a. Discussion With Adel Community Services City of Ukia Willits, cable discu: contents neg ~ith Adel essentially lme with thc Government fundin¢ regulatory recommended the terms and st inewal IS and Proposed Agreement that over the last five years, the Cou 3, and Cities of Fort Bragg and otiations with Adelphia Communications for the hin each respective jurisdiction. He went on to to Council which detailed the history of proposed for all four public agencies are of each agency's respective Public Education in on subscribership, and minor details relating to local agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. He direction to Staff with regard to any desired revisions to of the draft agreement and to determine a timeline for approval. He noted that in actuality, a 15-year term is proposed for the agreement. Councilmember McCowen proposed a 10-year term instead of 15 years, noting that there has been five years with no contribution. He also discussed the public sites listed for service in the agreement and the process to add/delete sites in the future. Steve Lamb, General Manager of Adelphia, discussed the negotiations and noted that the problem with having an open category is that the City would not be able to add specific sites in certain years. He did not have any objection to Councilmember McCowen's observations/proposals. Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 7 of 8 Director DeKnoblough explained that Staff considered a 10-year agreement; however, Adelphia wanted a longer term agreement for more security. The amount of PEG money awarded to Ukiah would be prorated. During the lengthy negotiation process, the City received some PEG payments, however, once the agreement expired, those payments ceased. M/S McCowen/Rodin to support the proposed agreement connection for future public educational and community fac listed in Attachment "D" at a cost to Adelphia per site not the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. th N~ ant to allow t with those $2,500; carried by ~n, Rodin, Baldwin, 10d. Discussion and Possible Ado Chan_~es to the In-Home Su Councilmember McCowen presented a opposing proposed changes to the In-Home described the importance of the servi( :~n O Council's c~ 9ration Services Program. He ram. Jan Moore, representing the local that the In-Home Supportive Servic~ opposing proposed chan~ ~ Services, explained ,:,adopted a resolution M/S McCowen In-Home Supi Councilmembers ABSTAIN: None. AB~ 11. C~ Ce n~ the D, Rol the Design PF~ 4ution in, opposing proposed changes to the the following roll call vote: AYES: and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. items be agendized for future Council discussion !ign Element of the General Plan and a review of It was the c~ us of C~ to agendize these items for a future Council meeting. 11. CITY MANI CLERK REPORTS City Manager HorslE that vinyl labels stating not to dump anything into the storm drain because it drains into the creek have been produced in Spanish and English and will be placed on sidewalks in front of storm drains. 12. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Regular Ukiah City Council Meeting April 20, 2005 Page 8 of 8 ITEM NO...~,~':~ DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING GRACE HUDSON MUSEUM SECURING THE SERVICES OF DAVID SMITH AS COMPUTER SERVICES SPECIALIST Pursuant to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code, staff is filing this report to the City Council regarding the securing of services for the Grace Hudson Museum. In the past, under the aegis of a Dept. of the Interior funded grant, the Museum has contracted with David Smith, a computer services specialist, to program and maintain the Museum's computer network and collections database. The Museum is entering the third year of funding, under this grant. As outlined in the attached approved grant budget, for this time period the cost of the services of the Computer Database Specialist will entail $3,600, or 60 hrs. of additional work, to reach the grant approved maximum of $12,000 over three years of time. These services will be funded through the Department of the Interior grant secured by the Museum, and will continue to be budgeted in account 141.6161.250.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Sherrie Smith-Ferri, Museum Director; Sage Sangiacomo; Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Budget page from Dept. of the Interior Grant APPROVED' "'~'~'/~~ M~an e Candace Horsley, City r LD/ZIP2 I-- Z LIJ ITEM NO. DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF JUNE 7, 2005 Now that all of the votes from the June 7, 2005 Special Municipal Election have been verified by the Mendocino County Clerk, the City Council must adopt a Resolution declaring the results of the Special Municipal Election. Certification of the Election by the Mendocino County Clerk is attached, along with the invoice for the election. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Adopt Resolution Declaring Results of June 7, 2005 Special Municipal Election ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City of Ukiah Electorate Marie Ulvila, City Clerk ~/z'.-~ ~/--~' ~"~-z?_z' Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution with Attached Election Results 2. Invoice for Special Municipal Election APPROVED: ~ Candace Horsley, City Man~~,er ASR:Election Results June 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 7, 2005, DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of Ukiah, California, on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting precincts were properly established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in general law cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-35 adopted on March 2, 2005, the Mendocino County Elections Department and the Mendocino County Clerk's office canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as "Exhibit A". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a total of 2,076 (Measure S) and 2,021 (Measure T) votes were cast in the City. SECTION 2. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City for and against the measures are listed in "Exhibit A" attached. SECTION 3. The City Council does declare and determine that as a result of the election, a simple majority of the voters voting on the "Measure S" relating to the "Shall Ordinance No. 1063 be adopted to impose a transaction (sales) and use tax at a maximum rate of one-half of one percent within the city limits of the City of Ukiah?" and "Measure T" relating to "Advisory Measure Only: Should additional funds for public safety, including police, fire and emergency medical services, be the first priority for the use of new sales tax Resolution No. 2006- Page 1of 2 revenues in the City of Ukiah", did vote in favor of these two measures, and the measures were carried, and shall be deemed adopted and ratified. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City of Ukiah, a statement of the result of the election, showing: (1) The whole number of ballots cast in the City; (2) The measures voted upon (3) The number of votes given at each precinct for and against each measure; and (4) The total numb er of votes given in the City for and against each measure. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day July, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mark Ashiku, Mayor Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Resolution No. 2006- Page 2of 2 MARSHA A. WHARFF ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER REGISTRAR OF VOTERS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL MARRIAGES E-MAIL acr@co.mendocino.ca.us (707) 463-4257 EXHIBIT A COUNTY OF MENDOCINO OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER 501 LOW GAP ROAD, RM. 1020 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 CINDYL. FRANCI ASSISTANT CLERK-RECORDER ANNE B. HOLDEN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF VOTERS REGISTRAR OF VOTERS (707)463-4371 RECORDER (707)463-4376 CLERK (707)463-437O June 13, 2005 Made Ulvila, City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA 95482 Dear Marie: Enclosed please find the Certificate of County Clerk to Result of the Canvass and Statement of Votes Cast for the Special Election held on June 7, 2005. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, MARSHA A. WHARFF Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Eric. STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST Date:06/13/05 SPECIAL ELECTION- CITY OF UKIAH Time:13:45:26 Page:l of 1 JUNE 7, 2005 TURN OUT CITY OF UKIAH - Measure S CITY OF UKIAH - Measure T nC> O ~ nC> > :>-i Z nC > ;>' Jurisdiction Wide 200001 Polling 840 60 7.14% 840 60 45 15 840 60 49 11 Absentee 840 116 13.81% 840 115 73 42 840 111 96 15 Total 840 176 20.95% 840 175 118 57 840 171 145 26 200002 Polling 832 79 9.50% 832 79 45 34 832 76 58 18 Absentee 832 123 14.78% 832 122 80 42 832 119 102 17 Total 832 202 24.28~' 832 201 125 76 832 195 160 35 200003 Polling 830 116 13.98~ 830 116 71 45 830 113 86 27 Absentee 830 152 18.31% 830 150 110 40 830 147 117 30 Total 830 268 32.29% 830 266 181 85 830 260 203 57 200004 Polling 878 156 17.77% 878 154 122 32~ 878 155 130 25 Absentee 878 178 20.27% 878 176 110 6~ 878 168 131 37 Total 878 334 38.04~ 878 330 232 98 878 323 261 62 200005 Polling 879 129 14.68% 879 129 88 41 879 125 94 31, Absentee 879 115 13.08% 879 111 75 36 879 107 89 18 Total 879 244 27.76% 879 240 163 77 879 232 183 200006 Polling 742 145 19.54% 742 145 118 27 742 142 112 312 Absentee 742 136 18.33% 742 136 88 48 742 133 109 24 Total 742 281 37.87% 742 281 206 75 742 275 221 54 200007 Polling 873 54 6.19% 873 54 38 16 873 53 42 11 Absentee 873 91 10.42% 873 89 65 24 873 85 72 13 Total 873 145 16.61% 873 143 103 40 873 138 114 24 200008 Polling 890 113 12.70% 890 113 85 28 890 110 83 27 Absentee 890 159 17.87% 890 158 115 43 890 152 133 19 Total 890 272 30.56°~' 890 271 200 71 890 262 216 46 200009 Polling 734 81 11.04% 734 81 55 26 734 81 63 18 Absentee 734 88 11.99% 734 88 59 29 734 84 74 10 Total 734 169 23.02% 734 169 114 55 734 165 137 28 Total Polling 7498 933 12.44% 7498 931 667 264 7498 915 717 198 Absentee 7498 1158 15.44% 7498 1145 775 3712 7498 1106 923 183 Total 7498 2091 27.89% 7498 2076 1442 634 7498 2021 1640 381 CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CLERK TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION - CITY OF UKIAH HELD ON JUNE 7, 2005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MENDOCINO ) )ss ) I, MARSHA A. WHARFF, County Clerk of said County, do hereby certify that I did canvass the returns of the votes cast in the Special Election held June 7, 2005, in the City of Ukiah, and that the Statement of the Votes Cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole number of votes cast in each of the respective consolidated precincts therein, and that the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for and against each measure are full, tree and correct. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 13th day of JUNE, 2005. (SEAL) MARSHA A. WHARFF Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder MARSHA A. WHARFF ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER REGISTRAR OF VOTERS · ' COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL MARRIAGES E-MAIL acr@co.mendocino.ca, us FAX (707) 463-4257 June 15, 2005 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER 501 LOW GAP ROAD, RM. 1020 UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 City of Ukiah Attn: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah CA 95482 Invoice # 2004-05:45 AI-FAGHI~ENT~ CINDYL. FRANCI ASSISTANT CLERK-RECORDER ANNE B. HOLDEN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF VOTERS REGISTRAR OF VOTERS (707)463-4371 RECORDER (707)463-4376 CLERK (7O7) 463.4370 Costs incurred for processing the Special Election held on June 7, 2005: Total Election Officials & Poll Places Total Ballots Total Supplies Total Postage Total Staff Time Total Legal Notices $ 2,996.81 $ 7,931.94 $1,361.91 $ 74O.74 $ 8,479.10 $ 82.93 TOTAL DUE AND PAYABLE ...... $ 21,593.43 Please remit to the above address. ITEM NO. 5c DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PUBLISHING SERVICES BY UKIAH DAILY JOURNAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5.42 PER COLUMN INCH FOR THE FIRST DAY AND $3.76 PER COLUMN INCH FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS As the Ukiah Daily Journal is the only newspaper that qualifies for the designation as "a newspaper having general circulation" in Ukiah, a formal process requesting bids for legal publishing services was not used. The Ukiah Daily Journal submitted a letter outlining its proposed 2005/2006 fiscal year contract rates for legal advertising with the City of Ukiah. It is proposing that the first run be $5.42 ($5.26 previous year) per column inch and additional runs $3.76 ($3.45 previous year) per column inch. Upon approval by the City Council, Staff would issue a Purchase Order to the Ukiah Daily Journal for legal advertising costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the legal publishing services by Ukiah Daily Journal for fiscal year 2003/2004, in the amount of $5.42 per column inch for the first day and $3.76 per column inch for additional days. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Marie Ulvila, City Clerk Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney 1. Proposal letter from Ukiah Daily Journal dated June 28, 2005 ~andace Horsley,~ity I~ager ASR: Publishing Contract 2005-2006 UDJ The DAI ATTACHMENT__~ Cindy Deik The Ukiah Daily Journal P.O. Box 749 Ukiah, CA. 95482 June 28, 2005 Marie Ulvila City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Here is a copy of the necessary information for the proposed rate structure between the Ukiah Daily Journal and the City of Ukiah for legal advertising for the time period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Required Information: 1. Total average paid circulation (ABC Publisher's Statement 3/31/05) 7750 Daily 8125 Sunday 2. Paid circulation within the 95482 zip code: 5745 Daily 5992 Sunday 3. Days of Publication: Morning- Saturday & Sunday; Evenings - Monday through Friday 4. Type and size print and format size used for legal publication: 8 pt. Helvetica, 6.0 pica wide columns, 0.11 point gutter between columns 5. Cost of Publication: a. First run $5.42 per column inch b. Additional rtins $3.76 per column inch In addition to the following guidelines, all contract terms, conditions and general information specified on The Ukiah Daily Journal's current rate card apply to this agreement between The Ukiah Daily Journal and the City of Ukiah: Errors and omissions: The Ukiah Daily Journal is liable only for the cost of the space containing an error and is not responsible for costs associated with omissions. Legal ads received and published after established deadlines will not be eligible for credit or a re-run in case of error. Copy Acceptance: Copy for legal ads will be accepted from printed copy, via email (as a text attachment only), on a 3.5 inch floppy disk (in text format only), and via fax. Proofs will be made available for copy received before deadline upon request. Requests for ads to be run after published deadline will be considered as space and time allows, with no guarantee of publication. Cancellations: Ads canceled after published deadlines may incur a 25% cancellation penalty. Sincerely, Cindy Delk Advertising Director AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO. 5cl DATE: July 6, 2005 REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM EBA ENGINEERING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AT THE CORPORATION YARD THE AMOUNT OF $8,980.20 AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,980.20 SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 1522 of the Ukiah City Code, this report is being submitted to the City Council for the purpose of reporting the acquisition of services costing $5,000 or more but less than $10,000. During a recent inspection of the Corporation Yard, Pete Lowman of the Mendocino County Division of Environmental Health requested cleanup of the site where electrical transformers have been stored. Staff procured initial soil sampling and contacted EBA Engineering (EBA) for a proposal to oversee the excavation and removal of contaminated soil and the preparation of a subsurface investigation report. Staff sought a proposal from EBA since they have ongoing work at the Corporation Yard and were able to respond in a timely manner. The purchasing officer issued a purchase order to EBA for completion of this work in the amount not to exceed $8,980.20. EBA completed excavation of contaminated soil and backfill of the area on June 21, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Receive and file report regarding the acquisition of professional services from EBA Engineering for environmental services at the corporation yard in the amount of $8,980.20. 2. Approve budget amendment in the amount of $8,980.20 ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: None. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Enginee~'~/~ Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works Candace Horsley, City Manager Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer None. Candace Horsley, City'l~anager RJS: AgebaProfSvcs-15 ITEM NO..~-~C~.. DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING GRACE HUDSON MUSEUM SECURING THE SERVICES OF KEITH WHITE WOLF JAMES AS NATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATOR Pursuant to the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Code, staff is filing this report to the City Council regarding the securing of services for the Grace Hudson Museum. Under the aegis of a Dept. of the Interior funded grant, for the last two fiscal years the Museum has contracted with Keith White Wolf James to develop and present Native American educational programs based on the Museum's collections and exhibitions. These Pomo-lndian focused programs have been held both on-site at the Museum and in-class at locations around Mendocino County. Mr. James has impressed Museum staff with his professionalism and reliability, and his popular presentations have been appreciated by thousands of students over the last two years. The Museum is entering the third year of funding, under this grant. As outlined in the attached approved grant budget, for this time period the cost of the services of the Native American educator are budgeted at $16,488 for 916 hours duration. These services will be funded through the Department of the Interior grant secured by the Museum, and will continue to be budgeted in account 141.6161.250.000. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive report. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A N/A Sherrie Smith-Ferri, Museum Director; Sage Sangiacomo; Community Services Supervisor Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Budget Page from Approved Dept. of the Interior Grant C~ndace Horsley, City Man'~r LD/ZIP2 o o o o I- Z I.i.I 1-1-EH NO: 7a DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUB.1ECT: ADOPTTON OF NEGATWE DECLARAT]~ON AND ?NTRODUCTTON OF ORDTNANCE ADD]~NG SECTI'ON 9254~ ENTrTLED "MART3UANA CULT]~VATTON" TO DTVI'SI'ON 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTI'CLE 19 OF THE UKI'AH CI'TY CODE SUMMARY: In response to citizen concerns about marijuana gardens in residential neighborhoods and an increase in criminal activity associated with them, the City Council conducted a series of public discussions to address the issue. At the conclusion of the discussions, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a draft Ordinance regulating the cultivation of Marijuana in the City limits. The Ordinance has been prepared, and because it amends the Ukiah zoning regulations, and requires the securing of a Use Permit to cultivate marijuana, it was referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations. The Planning Commission conducted three lengthy public hearings/workshops to consider the draft Ordinance and provide a forum for public discussion. At the conclusion of the process, the Commission made a number of modifications to the Ordinance and crafted a formal recommendation to the City Council. The recommended Ordinance is attached for the Council's consideration and final action. (continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the Negative Declaration; and 3) Introduce the Ordinance establishing regulations for the cultivation of marijuana as recommended by the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVE COUNCZL POLZCY OPTTON: Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide direction to Staff. Citizens Advised: Publicly noticed according to the requirements of local and State laws Requested by: City Planning Commission Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney Attachments: 1. 2. , Draft Ordinance Proposed Negative Declaration, comment letter from NORML, and Staff Response to Comments Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes, dated June 8, 2005 Draft "Medical Marijuana Oversight and Review Commission" Ordinance submitted by CAMMP Senate Bill 420 APPROVED: Candace Horsley, City/Manager THE DRAFT ORDI:NANCE: The project involves adding Section 9254 to the City Zoning Ordinance, entitled "lVlarijuana Cultivation." The proposed regulations permit the cultivation of the marijuana in all three residential zoning districts and in the Neighborhood Commercial district (C- N) with the securing of a Use Permit. The proposed regulations limit the number of plants to six (6), and the owner of the property must be a qualified patient. ]:n addition, the regulations prohibit marijuana from being grown within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The plants must also be located in an indoor secure location. The proposed regulations permit marijuana to be grown in the C-1 (community commercial), C-2 (heavy commercial), IVl (manufacturing), A (agricultural), and A-E (agriculture exclusive) zoning districts, provided no more than 12 immature and six mature plants per qualified patient are grown; the owner of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver, the parcel cannot be within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm; and the plants must be grown in an indoor secure location. THE PI.~NN]:NG COI41~I]:S:I:SON'S RECOI~II~IENDA'I']:ON: The Planning Commission conducted three public hearings/workshops to review, discuss and hear from the public on the proposed draft Ordinance. After hearing from the public, the Commission reviewed the Ordinance page-by-page and developed a number of recommendations for the Council's consideration. These recommendations are illustrated on the attached Ordinance with new language being bolded and deleted language be stdc'~cn out. The following text summarizes the Planning Commission recommendations: l. The provisions limiting the number of plants per parcel were changed to limit the number of plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver. Reason: The Commission concluded that this would be consistent with SB 420, and reduce potential legal exposure to the City. . The provisions limiting the number of plants in the residential zones to six was changed to limit the number of plants to six mature plants or twelve immature plants. Reason' Similarly, the Commission concluded that this would be consistent with SB 420, and reduce potential legal exposure to the City. . The provision for the residential and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning districts prohibiting plants from being grown in close proximity to educational facilities, parks or recreation centers, religious assembly facilities, or facilities catering to children, the elderly or the infirm was expanded to include "unless the decision-makers make a finding in the discretionary review process that a closer distance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare." Reason' The Commission concluded that there could be a circumstance where a legitimate medical marijuana patient wanted to grow a limited amount of medical marijuana on a parcel that may be 275 or 290 feet from a park, school, etc., where the plants would not be visible or noticeable to the public. The Commission concluded that there should be some case-by-case flexibility in the distance requirement. . . . The provision requiring all plants to be grown indoors was modified to read "The plants must be located in an indoor secure location. However, based on lot size and shape, the presence of structures and mature landscapinq, and the adjacent land uses and densities, the Use Permit applicant may request that not more than two plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver to a maximum of four plants per parcel be grown outdoors. All outdoor plants must be kept a minimum of fifteen feet from all property lines, kept less than six feet in heiqht, and secured behind a locked fence/qate. The decision-makers must make a findinq that the qrowing of up to four outdoor plants per parcel would not have a detrimental impact on the public's health, safety, and general welfare." The decision-makers must also find: a. That the size and shape of the parcel, as well as the presence of structures and mature landscaping would allow the planting of an indiscrete small outdoor mariiuana garden that could comply with the yard setback and height standards above; and b. That the land uses and densities of adiacent parcels are not incompatible and would not conflict with the qrowinq of a small indiscrete outdoor marijuana garden. Reason: The Commission concluded that the primary problem associated with outdoor growing in residential neighborhoods is bold, over-zealous cultivators who disregard the concerns of their neighbors. To balance the need for providing a relatively inexpensive, easy, and convenient way for legitimate medical marijuana patients to cultivate medical marijuana, and to eliminate neighborhood safety and nuisance issues, the Commission is recommending that the regulations allow the Use Permit applicant to propose growing a maximum of two outdoor plants per patient or primary caregiver, with a total not to exceed four outdoor plants. With the yard setback, height, and security standards, the Commission concluded that a legitimate patient could potentially create a hidden inconspicuous garden that would not create a safety or nuisance hazard. The decision- makers would be required to make findings of fact to support a decision to allow a small outdoor garden. Adding a provision to the regulations for the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts stating that"Growing medical marijuana on leqal non-conforminq residential parcels in the C-:I, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts shall be subject to the requirements for growing medical marijuana in residential zoning districts .... " Reason: The Commission felt that cultivating marijuana on any property being used for residential purposes should be regulated the same, regardless of its zoning. The Citizens Advisory on IYedica/ Marijuana Po/icy (CAMIYP) submitted a draft Ordinance establishing a Medical Marijuana Oversight and Review Commission (Attachment No. 4). The purpose of this Commission would be to promote the responsible conduct and operation of gardens and dispensaries; to "foster harm reduction" policies; to develop "good neighbour" policies; and to mediate neighbourhood disputes. The Planning Commission concluded that the general concept of establishing a Commission or Committee to act as an advisory body to the City Council in terms of promoting the responsible and safe cultivation and use of medical marijuana had merit. However, it expressed concern that there would be a need for Staff support and resources, which are extremely limited. Additionally, the Commission concluded that regulations are necessary, and it did not support abandoning the regulations in favor of the establishment of an oversight and review Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that if the City Council decided to form a Medical Marijuana Oversight and Review Commission, that the first paragraph (Declaration of Policy) of the draft ordinance submitted by the CAMMP be included in the proposed Ordinance establishing medical marijuana cultivation regulations. ENV]:RONI~tENTAL REVZEW: Staff prepared an :Initial Environmental Study to analyze the Potential impacts and concluded that the proposed regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. No impacts were identified, and a Negative Declaration was prepared and made available for public review and comment. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) submitted comments on the document. No other comments were received. Mr. Dane Wilkins, Executive Director of the Northern California NORML expressed concern that the proposed Negative Declaration did not adequately address health and safety issues. Staff prepared formal responses to the comments for consideration by the decision-makers (]:ncluded with Attachment No. 2). The Planning Commission concluded that the concerns expressed by IVlr. Wilkins were adequately addressed by Staff's Response to Comments. The Planning Commission made modifications to the proposed Ordinance as it formulated its recommendation to the City Council. However, it concluded that these modifications were not substantial enough to significantly change the analysis, findings or conclusions of the Negative Declaration. l~t concluded further that the modifications do not create new potentially significant adverse environmental impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. As a result, the Commission is recommending the adoption of the Negative Declaration. If the Council accepts the Ordinance modifications recommended by the Planning Commission, the Council must modify, with Staff's assistance, the project description contained in the Negative Declaration before adopting the document. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission conducted three public hearings to gather information, discuss issues, and formulate recommendations to the City Council concerning medical marijuana cultivation regulations. The Commission worked very hard to create regulations that provide the legitimate medical marijuana patient the ability to grow a reasonable amount of medicine in a way that does not create safety or nuisance issues in residential neighborhoods. It did this by limiting the total number of plants that can be cultivated, and potentially permitting a small number to be grown outdoors in an inconspicuous non-impacting way. The Planning Commission concluded that true medical marijuana patients would want to cultivate in a very indiscrete way to increase the likelihood that their plants would make it to harvest and their medicine would be available. If a patient could demonstrate that because of size and/or shape of their parcel, as well as the physical characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, limited outdoor growing could be accomplished in an inconspicuous and safe way, the decision-makers could permit a maximum of two to four plants to be cultivated outdoors. The Planning Commission believes that it's recommended Ordinance achieves the needed balance between the needs of true medical marijuana patients and the safety concerns and issues raised by residents. RECOt41~IENDATZON: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the Negative Declaration; and 3) ]:ntroduce the Ordinance establishing regulations for the cultivation of marijuana as recommended by the Planning Commission. Attc~hrnent # /- / III I I I I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADDING SECTION 9254, ENTITLED: "MARIJUANA CULTIVATION," TO DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 19 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: 1. In November 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which enacted Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. Under the Compassionate Use Act, Health and Safety Code Section 11357, making it a crime to possess marijuana, and Section 11358 making it a crime to cultivate marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 2. Since the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act, 264 persons with residence addresses in the City of Ukiah have been issued medical marijuana identification cards by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Department. 3. The number of parcels in the City used to grow marijuana has increased substantially. The City Police Department estimates that up to 250 parcels are currently being used to grow marijuana throughout the City's residential neighborhoods. 4. Marijuana plants as they begin to flower and for a period of 2 months or more during the growing season (August- October) produce an extremely strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far beyond property boundaries. One popular strain of marijuana is called "Skunk" or "Super Skunk" and has a strong odor that resembles the smell of a skunk. 5. The strong smell of marijuana as well as its visibility from adjacent parcels or from areas accessible to the general public advertises its presence in the neighborhood and creates both an attractive nuisance and the risk of robbery and armed robbery. 6. Recently, the City planning and police departments have received numerous odor complaints related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District ("MCAQMD") reports an accelerating MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 1 Attachment increase in formal air quality complaints associated with the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods in the City of Ukiah. In 2002, the MCAQMD received two such complaints; in 2003, five complaints; and by October 31, 2004, it had received over 20 formal complaints for 2004. In addition, in 2004 MCAQMD received an additional two dozen informal calls complaining about marijuana odor in residential neighborhoods in the City. 7. Several highly publicized recent events have called attention to the impact on public safety caused by the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods of the City. In one recent incident a property owner was shot in the hand by an intruder caught stealing marijuana from the property owner's backyard. The intruder gained entrance through a neighboring property and passed the neighbor's bedroom window, carrying a loaded handgun. In 2004 the City police department reports numerous calls to the department to respond to incidents related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. 8. At a City Council meeting on November 3, 2004, several members of the public testified to problems in their neighborhoods related to marijuana cultivation, including impacts associated with intense cultivation of mature plants, growing as tall as 14 feet, within a 100 square foot area. These impacts ranged from increased traffic to acts of violence and intimidation. 9. The Mendocino County District Attorney refuses to prosecute persons who grow marijuana as long as the person claims to be growing it pursuant to Proposition 215 and within a 100 square foot area on his or her property. As a result, City Police have been unable to take enforcement action, even where cultivation of marijuana for sale is suspected. 10. The City of Ukiah is a relatively small city with a population of approximately 15,000 people. It has three full-time planners in its Planning Department, one part-time code enforcement officer and one building inspector. It has limited resources available to engage in extensive regulation of marijuana cultivation. 11. Limiting the number of plants per tgamel qualified patient or primary caregiver that medical marijuana patients may grow in residential neighborhoods and requiring that the majority of plants they be grown indoors within a secure structure should alleviate a number of the above-described problems. These requirements should substantially reduce the public nuisance caused by the odor of mature plants. It should make marijuana cultivation less visible and less attractive to young people or potential thieves. It should prevent cultivation for sale and the associated public safety problems. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 2 Attachment # I.- ~ 12. Prior to the enactment of Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 in 2003, the US government established for research purposes a medical marijuana dose range of between one half and three quarters of a pound per patient per month.1 After reviewing the dose range established by the federal government, the Oakland City Council adopted a limit of three pounds per year per patient, with a related plant-count limit for cultivation. In Sonoma County medical marijuana patients were allowed to possess enough cannabis to support their personal use of up to three pounds per year. Other communities had set limits per patient of between one-half to two pounds. 13. According to Cannabis Yields by the DEA, various types of cannabis plants under various planting conditions may yield averages of 236 grams, or about one half pound, to 846 grams, or nearly two pounds. A weighted average results in an average domestic plant yield of 448 grams, or approximately 1 pound per plant.2 14. While a particular patient under Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 may be exempt from criminal prosecution under state law, if he or she possesses eight ounces of dried marijuana, six mature plants or twelve immature plants, six mature plants can yield six to twelve pounds of marijuana which should provide access to sufficient marijuana for the medical use of most patients under the Compassionate Use Act. Any additional marijuana required by a patient can be obtained from other sources, including marijuana dispensaries in the Ukiah area, or from cultivation permitted under this ordinance in non-residential zoning districts. 15. Given the above-described public nuisance and public safety problems associated with growing marijuana in residential neighborhoods within the City, a six plant per qualified patient or primary caregiver ~ limit strikes a reasonable balance between a medical marijuana patient's requirements and the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. 16. It is the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall conflict with federal law as contained in the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., nor to otherwise permit any activity that is prohibited under that Act. It is further the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to (1) allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, (2) allow the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes, or (3) allow any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal. 1 See: Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis. 2. See study at: Cannabis Yields, June 1992, DEA. Information from Marijuana Patient Use And Cultivation Limits, Martin Martinez, Lifeline Foundation at www.cannabismd.orq/foundation. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 3 Attachment # 1- ~" SECTION TWO Section 9254 is hereby added to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code to read as follows. §9254: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION: Marijuana may be grown in the zoning districts of the City of Ukiah, if at all, only in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Cultivation of marijuana on parcels within the City that does not comply with this Section constitutes a violation of the zoning ordinance and is subject to the penalties and enforcement as provided in Article 22, commencing with § 9350. A. Definitions: For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Evidence" means with respect to a qualified patient, the information described in Health and Safety Code §11362.715(a)(2) or a medical marijuana identification card issued by the Mendocino County Health Department or Sheriff's Department, and with respect to a primary caregiver, evidence that the caregiver's patient is a qualified patient and a written designation from the caregiver's qualified patient designating him or her as that patient's primary caregiver, and additional information demonstrating that the primary caregiver satisfies the definition of primary caregiver in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 2. "Owner" means the owner or owners of record of a parcel as shown on the last equalized assessment roll maintained by Mendocino County. 3. "Parcel" means property assigned a separate parcel number by the Mendocino County Assessor; 4. "Person in lawful possession" means the person who has the legal right to occupy and use a parcel on which medical marijuana is cultivated. 5. "Primary caregiver" means a "primary caregiver" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 6. "Qualified patient" means a "qualified patient" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(0. 7. "Secure location" means a space within a building or structure which can only be entered through a locked door that requires a key or combination to open and which is secure against unauthorized entry. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 4 Attachment B. Marijuana Cultivation in Residential Zoning Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the R-l, R-2, R-3, and C-N zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. 1. No more than six mature or twelve immature marijuana plants may be grown per qualified patient or primary caregiver on a parcel. 2. The person with legal possession of the parcel must be a qualified ~,., .'-a*;en* r~,.~,, ,~,.-. ,.,,~,m..,~ ,...,~..,., "on ~ ..~r,..., ~_ · ~.~.~,,~.,~, ..... , .... ,~ ........ ~, ....... may grow mar~ju3n~ ~, ~ ....... rowing ,, ,,.,,,j,,,.,, ,,.. R-2 D3,,~CN I I I, VI t,.4 i g I,. I 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following' a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm, unless it is determined through the discretionary review process that a closer distance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 5. The plants must be located in an indoor secure location. However, based on lot size and shape, the presence of structures and mature landscaping, and the adjacent land uses and densities, the Use Permit applicant may request that not more than two plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver to a maximum of four plants per parcel be grown outdoors. All outdoor plants must be kept a minimum of fifteen feet from all property lines, kept less than six feet in height, and secured behind a locked fence/gate. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 5 Attachment # The decision-makers must find that the growing of up to four outdoor plants per parcel would not have a detrimental impact on the public's health, safety, and general welfare." The decision-makers must also find: a. That the size and shape of the parcel, as well as the presence of structures and mature landscaping would allow the planting of an indiscrete small outdoor marijuana garden that could comply with the yard setback and height standards above; and b. That the land uses and densities of adjacent parcels are not incompatible and would not conflict with the growing of a small indiscrete outdoor marijuana garden. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. C. Marijuana Cultivation in Non-residential Zoninq Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. 1. No more than twelve immature and six mature plants per qualified patient may be grown on a parcel. 2. The person with legal possession of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver. If the person is a primary caregiver: a. the limits in subsection C.1 above apply to each qualified patient he or she is a primary caregiver for; and b. a use permit shall not be approved, unless the City makes a finding based on a report from the Police Chief or his designee that the applicant does not have a criminal history that would pose a threat of marijuana sales, the diversion of marijuana to non-medical uses or of conduct that endangers others. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 6 Attachment # {- 7 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following: a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or building or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. 5. The plants must be grown indoors in a secure location. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall or Building Inspector, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. 8. Marijuana may not be smoked or consumed on the parcel. 9. Growing medical marijuana on legal non-conforming residential parcels in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts shall be subject to the requirements for growing medical marijuana in residential zoning districts listed in Section 9254(B) above. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 7 Attachment D. Applications for Use Permits under Subsections B and C. In addition to complying with the provisions of Section 9262, applications for a use permit under Subsections B and C, above, shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The use permit shall be considered a major use permit and the Planning Commission shall conduct the initial public hearing. 2. The application shall be accompanied by an additional fee established by resolution of the City Council that covers all costs of processing the application, including, but not limited to, the full cost of the criminal history report required by Subsection C.2.b. The City Council may establish by resolution a separate fee for a renewal application under Subsection E below. 3. A primary caregiver applicant must (1) submit to the City Police Department his or her fingerprints and his or her criminal history for use in investigating the applicant's criminal history through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and information maintained by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and (2) to the extent required by law, a written consent to the use of the CJIS and FBI data base and to the use of the information obtained in acting on the application for a use permit. A public hearing shall not be scheduled until the Police Chief, or his designee, submits to the Planning Department his or her written recommendation concerning the findings required by Subsection C.2.b, above. 4. The application must include all of the following information: plants; a. Name, address, Assessor's Parcel Number and number of b. Evidence that the applicant is in lawful possession of the parcel; c. Evidence of status as a qualified patient or evidence of status as a primary caregiver as to each patient the applicant claims to be a primary caregiver for. d. Site plan showing location of plants and plans demonstrating satisfaction of the requirements of Subsections B.4 and B.5 or C.4 and C.5. e. Sufficient information to determine that a primary caregiver will only receive payments from a qualified patient that constitute bona fide reimbursement for his or her actual expense of cultivating and furnishing marijuana for the patient's approved medical treatment. 5. The use permit granted pursuant to this Section is personal to the applicant, cannot be assigned or transferred, does not run with the land, and expires twelve months after it is issued, unless renewed pursuant to Subsection E. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 8 Attachment E. Permit Renewal. The use permit must be renewed annually in connection with which the City shall conduct an inspection of the premises to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section. The permit shall expire and thereafter marijuana cultivation on the parcel shall be subject to a new use permit application, unless a renewal application accompanied by the required fee is received by the Planning Department no later than forty-five days prior to the anniversary date of the issuance of the use permit. A hearing on the renewal of the use permit shall be conducted before the Zoning Administrator, as for a minor use permit, according to the procedures in Section 9262. In addition to any other determinations permitted or required by Section 9262, the Zoning Administrator shall refuse to renew the permit, if he or she determines that the applicant has willfully violated any material conditions of the permit or the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION THREE 1. ENFORCEMENT. Violations of this Ordinance shall be enforced and abated according to the requirements of the Ukiah City Code. 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on ., 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 9 Attachment# J-~O Adopted on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,2005 by the following roll call vote' Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk 10 Ukiah CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Attachment # z-/ DATE: APPLICANTS: PRO3ECT: LOCATION: REVIEW PERIOD: March 4, 2005 City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development Zoning Code Amendment 05-:1.0 - Section 9254 "Marijuana Cultivation" The proposed Zoning Code Amendment applies to all property in the City March 6, 2005 through March 29, 2005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves adding Section 9254 to the City Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Marijuana Cultivation." The proposed regulations permit the cultivation of the marijuana in the R-:~ (single family residential), R-2 (medium density residential), R-3 (high density residential), and C-N (neighborhood commercial) zoning districts provided a Use Permit is first secured. The regulations limit the number of plants to six (6), and the owner of the property must be a qualified patient. Tn addition, the regulations prohibit marijuana from being grown within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The plants must also be located in an indoor secure location. The proposed regulations permit marijuana to be grown in the C-:~ (community commercial), C-2 (heavy commercial), M (manufacturing), A (agricultural), and A-E (agriculture exclusive) zoning districts, provided no more than :[2 immature and six mature plants per qualified patient are grown; the owner of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver, the parcel cannot be within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm; and the p[plants must be grown in an indoor secure location. ENVIRONMENTAL SETrZNG: The City of Ukiah is a dense urban environment with a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The ]n/t/a/Stud? 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: 1. 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; 2. 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; 3. 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 4. 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. STATEMENT OF DECLARATION: 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 y be reviewed at the City of Ukiah Department of ~ah3/4/05 Planning a/l~om~nity ' Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, //~ ,~/PI~ ~' mental Coordinator Date ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADDING SECTION 9254, ENTITLED: "MARIJUANA CULTIVATION," TO DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 19 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE The City Cc~uncil hereby finds and declares as follows: 1. In November 1996, the voters of California approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which enacted Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. Under the Compassionate Use Act, Health and Safety Code Section 11357, making it a crime to possess marijuana, and Section 11358 making it a crime to cultivate marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 2. Since the enactment of the Compassionate Use Act, 264 persons with residence addresses in the City of Ukiah have been issued medical marijuana identification cards by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Department. 3. The number of parcels in the City used to grow marijuana has increased substantially. The City Police Department estimates that up to 250 parcels are currently being used to grow marijuana throughout the City's residential neighborhoods. 4. Marijuana plants as they begin to flower and for a period of 2 months or more during the growing season (August - October) produce an extremely strong odor, offensive to many people, and detectable far beyond property boundaries. One popular strain of marijuana is called "Skunk" or "Super Skunk" and has a strong odor that resembles the smell of a skunk. 5. The strong smell of marijuana as well as its visibility from adjacent parcels or from areas accessible to the general public advertises its presence in the neighborhood and creates both an attractive nuisance and the risk of robbery and armed robbery. 6. Recently, the City planning and police departments have received numerous odor complaints related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. The Mendocino County Air Quality Management District ("MCAQMD") reports an accelerating MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 1 increase in formal air quality complaints associated with the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods in the City of Ukiah. In 2002, the MCAQMD received two such complaints; in 2003, five complaints; and by October 31, 2004, it had received over 20 formal complaints for 2004. In addition, in 2004 MCAQMD received an additional two dozen informal calls complaining about marijuana odor in residential neighborhoods in the City. 7. Several highly publicized recent events have called attention to the impact on public safety caused by the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods of the City. In one recent incident a property owner was shot in the hand by an intruder caught stealing marijuana from the property owner's backyard. The intruder gained entrance through a neighboring property and passed the neighbor's bedroom window, carrying a loaded handgun. In 2004 the City police department reports numerous calls to the department to respond to incidents related to the growing of marijuana in residential neighborhoods. 8. At a City Council meeting on November 3, 2004, several members of the public testified to problems in their neighborhoods related to marijuana cultivation, including impacts associated with intense cultivation of mature plants, growing as tall as 14 feet, within a 100 square foot area. These impacts ranged from increased traffic to acts of violence and intimidation. 9. The Mendocino County District Attorney refuses to prosecute persons who grow marijuana as long as the Person claims to be growing it pursuant to Proposition 215 and within a 100 square foot area on his or her property. As a result, City Police have been unable to take enforcement action, even where cultivation of marijuana for sale is suspected. 10. The City of Ukiah is a relatively small city with a population of approximately 15,000 people. It has three full-time planners in its Planning Department, one part-time code enforcement officer and one building inspector. It has limited resources available to engage in extensive regulation of marijuana cultivation. 11. Limiting the number of plants per parcel that medical marijuana patients may grow in residential neighborhoods and requiring that that they be grown indoors within a secure structure should alleviate a number of the above-described problems. These requirements should substantially reduce the public nuisance caused by the odor of mature plants. It should make marijuana cultivation less visible and less attractive to young people or potential thieves. It should prevent cultivation for sale and the associated public safety problems. 12. Prior to the enactment of Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 in 2003, the US government established for research purposes a medical marijuana dose range MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 2 of between one half and three quarters of a pound per patient per month.~ After reviewing the dose range established by the federal government, the Oakland City Council adopted a limit of three pounds per year per patient, with a related plant-count limit for cultivation. In Sonoma County medical marijuana patients were allowed to possess enough cannabis to support their personal use of up to three pounds per year. Other communities had set limits per patient of between one-half to two pounds. 13. According to Cannabis Yields by the DEA, various types of cannabis plants under various planting conditions may yield averages of 236 grams, or about one half pound, to 846 grams, or nearly two pounds. A weighted average results in an average domestic plant yield of 448 grams, or approximately 1 pound per plant.2 14. While a particular patient under Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 may be exempt from criminal prosecution under state law, if he or she possesses six mature plants or twelve immature plants, six mature plants can yield six to twelve pounds of marijuana which should provide access to sufficient marijuana for the medical use of most patients under the Compassionate Use Act. Any additional marijuana required by a patient can be obtained from other sources, including marijuana dispensaries in the Ukiah area, or from cultivation permitted under this ordinance in non-residential zoning districts. 15. Given the above-described public nuisance and public safety problems associated with growing marijuana in residential neighborhoods within the City, a six plant per parcel limit strikes a reasonable balance between a medical marijuana patient's requirements and the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. 16. It is the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall conflict with federal law as contained in the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., nor to otherwise permit any activity that is prohibited under that Act. It is further the City Council's intention that nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to (1) allow persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, (2) allow the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes, or (3) allow any activity relating to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise illegal. SECTION TWO Section 9254 is hereby added to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code to read as follows. 1 See: Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis. 2. See study at: Cannabis Yields, June 1992, DEA. Information from Marijuana Patient Use And Cultivation Limits, Martin Martinez, Lifeline Foundation at www.cannabismd.orq/foundation. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 3 §9254: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION: Marijuana may be grown in the zoning districts of the City of Ukiah, if at all, only in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Cultivation of marijuana on parcels within the City that does not comply with this Section constitutes a violation of the zoning ordinance and is subject to the penalties and enforcement as provided in Article 22, commencing with § 9350. A. Definitions: For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 1. "Evidence" means with respect to a qualified patient, the information described in Health and Safety Code §11362.715(a)(2) or a medical marijuana identification card issued by the Mendocino County Health Department or Sheriff's Department, and with respect to a primary caregiver, evidence that the caregiver's patient is a qualified patient and a written designation from the caregiver's qualified patient designating him or her as that patient's primary caregiver, and additional information demonstrating that the primary caregiver satisfies the definition of primary caregiver in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 2. "Owner" means the owner or owners of record of a parcel as shown on the last equalized assessment roll maintained by Mendocino County. 3. "Parcel" means property assigned a separate parcel number by the Mendocino County Assessor; 4. "Person in lawful possession" means the person who has the legal right to occupy and use a parcel on which medical marijuana is cultivated. 5. "Primary caregiver" means a "primary caregiver" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(d). 6. "Qualified patient" means a "qualified patient" as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7(0. 7. "Secure location" means a space within a building or structure which can only be entered through a locked door that requires a key or combination to open and which is secure against unauthorized entry. B. Marijuana Cultivation in Residential Zoninq Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the R-l, R-2, R-3, and C-N zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. 1. No more than six marijuana plants may be grown on a parcel. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 4 2. The person with legal possession of the parcel must be a qualified patient. Only the qualified patient may grow marijuana on a parcel. Growing marijuana by a primary caregiver is not permitted by this Section or otherwise permitted in an R-l, R-2, R-3 or C-N district. 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following: a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. 5. The plants must be located in an indoor secure location. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. C. Marijuana Cultivation in Non-residential Zoninq Districts. Marijuana cultivation may be permitted in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts in the City, subject to first securing a use permit pursuant to the provisions in Section 9262 and compliance with the following additional requirements. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 5 1. No more than twelve immature and six mature plants per qualified patient may be grown on a parcel. 2. The person with legal possession of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver. If the person is a primary caregiver: a. the limits in subsection C.1 above apply to each qualified patient he or she is a primary caregiver for; and b. a use permit shall not be approved, unless the City makes a finding based on a report from the Police Chief or his designee that the applicant does not have a criminal history that would pose a threat of marijuana sales, the diversion of marijuana to non-medical uses or of conduct that endangers others. 3. The property owner or owners have signed and filed with the Planning Department a form adopted by the Planning Department in consultation with the City Attorney that contains all of the following: a. Acknowledgment that growing marijuana on the property may constitute a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act with potential civil and criminal penalties, including (1) imprisonment for up to five (5) years and a fine of up to $250,000 or both, and (2) the possible forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 USC § 853; b. Consent to the use of the property for growing marijuana in accordance with this Section; and c. An agreement releasing the City and its officers, employees and agents from any liability to the applicant and the owner for issuing a use permit and for the acts or omissions of the City and its officers, employees and agents in the administration of this Section. 4. The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly, or building or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. 5. The plants must be grown indoors in a secure location. 6. The facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation must comply with the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and Uniform Building Code, and not be deemed to create an undue fire hazard by the City's Fire Marshall or Building Inspector, or a health or safety hazard to persons present in the building or structure where the marijuana is being grown. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 6 7. As a condition of receiving a use permit, the applicant must sign an agreement that, for the entire time that the permit application is pending and the permit is in effect, consents to inspection of the parcel and any building or structure on the parcel by any City employee with responsibility for verifying compliance with this Section. 8. Marijuana may not be smoked or consumed on the parcel. D. Applications for Use Permits under Subsections B and C. In addition to complying with the provisions of Section 9262, applications for a use permit under Subsections B and C, above, shall comply with the following requirements. 1. The use permit shall be considered a major use permit and the Planning Commission shall conduct the initial public hearing. 2. The application shall be accompanied by an additional fee established by resolution of the City Council that covers all costs of processing the application, including, but not limited to, the full cost of the criminal history report required by Subsection C.2.b. The City Council may establish by resolution a separate fee for a renewal application under Subsection E below. 3. A primary caregiver applicant must (1) submit to the City Police Department his or her fingerprints and his or her criminal history for use in investigating the applicant's criminal history through the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and information maintained by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and (2) to the extent required by law, a written consent to the use of the CJIS and FBI data base and to the use of the information obtained in acting on the application for a use permit. A public hearing shall not be scheduled until the Police Chief, or his designee, submits to the Planning Department his or her written recommendation concerning the findings required by Subsection C.2.b, above. 4. The application must include all of the following information: plants; a. Name, address, Assessor's Parcel Number and number of b. Evidence that the applicant is in lawful possession of the parcel; c. Evidence of status as a qualified patient or evidence of status as a primary caregiver as to each patient the applicant claims to be a primary caregiver for. d. Site plan showing location of plants and plans demonstrating satisfaction of the requirements of Subsections B.4 and B.5 or C.4 and C.5. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 7 e. Sufficient information to determine that a primary caregiver will only receive payments from a qualified patient that constitute bona fide reimbursement for his or her actual expense of cultivating and furnishing marijuana for the patient's approved medical treatment. 5. The use permit granted pursuant to this Section is personal to the applicant, cannot be assigned or transferred, does not run with the land, and expires twelve months after it is issued, unless renewed pursuant to Subsection E. E. Permit Renewal. The use permit must be renewed annually in connection with which the City shall conduct an inspection of the premises to verify compliance with the requirements of this Section. The permit shall expire and thereafter marijuana cultivation on the parcel shall be subject to a new use permit application, unless a renewal application accompanied by the required fee is received by the Planning Department no later than forty-five days prior to the anniversary date of the issuance of the use permit. A hearing on the renewal of the use permit shall be conducted before the Zoning Administrator, as for a minor use permit, according to the procedures in Section 9262. In addition to any other determinations permitted or required by Section 9262, the Zoning Administrator shall refuse to renew the permit, if he or she determines that the applicant has willfully violated any material conditions of the permit or the requirements of this Ordinance. SECTION THREE 1. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phraSes be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ukiah, and shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Introduced by title only on ,2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE NO. 8 Adopted on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,2005 by the following roll call vote' Mark Ashiku, Mayor ATTEST: Marie Ulvila, City Clerk City of Ukiah INITIAL STUDY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Project Title: Zoning Code Amendment 05 - 10 "Marijuana Cultivation" . Lead agency name and address: City of Ukiah - 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 . Contact person and phone number: Chadey 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 . Description of project: The Zoning Ordinance amendment regulates the cultivation of marijuana in the City (see more detailed project description below). The proposed Ordinance is attached. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: N/A -Citywide 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -1- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Based on a review of the proposed marijuana cultivation regulations, it is concluded that none of the followinq 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. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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. 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 earlier 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 Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves adding Section 9254 to the City Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Marijuana Cultivation." The proposed regulations permit the cultivation of the marijuana in the R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (medium density residential), R-3 (high density residential), and C-N (neighborhood commercial) zoning districts provided a Use Permit is first secured. The regulations limit the number of plants to six (6), and the owner of the property must be a qualified patient. In addition, the regulations prohibit marijuana from being grown within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The plants must also be located in an indoorsecure location. The proposed regulations permit marijuana to be grown in the C-1 (community commercial), C-2 (heavy commercial), M (manufacturing), A (agricultural), and A-E (agriculture exclusive) zoning districts, provided no more than 12 immature and six mature plants per qualified patient are grown; the owner of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver, the parcel cannot be within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm; and the p[plants must be grown in an indoor secure location. 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 historic 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 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation X X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -3- 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? 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 criteria 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) Resq, lt 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 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -4- (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: 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 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -5- 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? 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 risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -6- iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS B Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X 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? 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 Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -7- X X X 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 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 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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)? X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -8- c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact I No Impact X X X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -9- 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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 XI. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -10- 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? 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 X XII. 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 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -11- XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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? XIV. 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: 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 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X X X X X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -12- either the number of vehicle trips, 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 patterns, 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? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS B Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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 X Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -13- 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? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -14- effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? '2.- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation X X DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS: The project essentially requires the growing of marijuana plants to be indoors on property owned by a legitimate and qualified patient, and that it not be grown in close proximity to places where children, the elderly and ill people reside. Additionally, the regulations require that the indoor growing facilities and equipment comply with all applicable Fire and Building Codes. 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 growing activity. Hydrology, Water Quality, Air Quality, and Geology/Soils: The growing of marijuana 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. Requiring the plants to be grown indoors would eliminate the apparent odor nuisance of ripening plants associated with outdoor growing, and therefore would reduce or eliminate "air quality" impacts. Recreation: The growing of indoor marijuana would not adversely impact parks and recreation facilities because it is required to be grown at least 300-feet from areas where children assemble. Additionally, the growing activity would not cause a need for additional parks and recreation employees or equipment. Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -15- 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 indoor marijuana 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 pdvate 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 areas where children, the elderly, and the ill assemble. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The growing of indoor marijuana involves the use of lighting systems that use considerable amounts of electricity to grow the plants and dry the harvested product. If not properly installed, or if the electrical system in the structure is not designed for the load of required electricity, a significant fire hazard could be created. However, the recommended regulations require the facilities or equipment used in the indoor cultivation to comply with all applicable Fire and Building Codes. Therefore, the potentially significant impact has now been deemed to be less than significant. Public Services: Discussions with the Staff of the City Fire, 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. Utility Systems: As noted above, the growing and processing of indoor marijuana requires the use of ample amounts of electricity. 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. CONCLUSION: Based on the 'discussion provided above, Staff is able to conclude that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative declaration is appropriate for the prepared. MITIGATION MONITORING: No mitigation measures are recommended, therefore no Monitoring and Reporting program is required. Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -16- RESOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS INITIAL STUDY . . . . . 11. 12. City of Ukiah General Plan, 1995 The Linkaqe Between Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1993. The Land Use - Air Quality Linkage: How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, State Air Resources Board, 1997. Transportation-Related Land Use Strateqies to Minimize Mobile Source Emissions: An Indirect Source Research Project, State Air Resources Board, 1995. A Source of Air Quality Conditions Includinq Emissions Inventory, Ozone Formation, PM10 Generation, and Mitigation Measures for Mendocino County, CA., Sonoma Technologies, Inc., November, 1998. General Plan Revision and Growth Management Plan Technical Report: Natural Habitat Section, Michael W. Skenfield, and October, 1991 Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Eastern Part, and Trinity County, Southwestern Part, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, January, 1991. A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River, Steiner Environmental Consulting, August, 1996. U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Ukiah Quadrangle, 1958 (photo inspected 1975). Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan Report, Shutt Moen Associates, July, 1996. City Air Photographs: 1996 and April, 2000. 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 Marijuana Ordinance CEQA Initial Study March 2005 -1% · · !Norther. California 95482 707- 462 5287 f4'orking together for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Mutual Respect, Personal Responsibility attd Honest), March 24, 2005 Charley Stump Director of Planning and Community Development Ukiah Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah ,Ca. 95482 Subject: Comments on Project 05-10 "Marijuana Cultivation" Dear Mr. Stump: On behalf of our staff and Board of Directors of Northern California NORML, we would like to thank you and your staff for the job you do. We have some extremely serious concerns over the proposed negative declaration, as well as other concerns regarding the proposed ordinance itself. . Environmental Issues/Health and Safety- An indoor garden requires large amounts of electrical usage. Typically, in an average Ukiah home, the estimated energy use for lighting alone is 50 -200 kWh/month (Exhibit A- City of Ukiah Customer service dept.). An energy use calculation for the lighting necessary to light a small garden and a larger garden (600 Watts and 1000 Watts) has been attached (Exhibits B and C). Lighting Usage Cost @. 12/kWh Avg. Ukiah Home 50- 200kWh / mth $6.00- 24.00/mth Home+ 600 Watt 5450 -5650 kWh/mth $64. 80/mth-88. 80 · · · · · · · · · · i · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · March 28, 200.5 ?'age 2 Lighting Usage Cost @. 12/kWh Avg. Ukiah Home 50 - 200kWh / mth $6.00- 24.00/mth Home+ 1000 Watt 9050 -9200 kWh/mth $108.80- 132.00/mth These electrical usage estimates are estimates and do not include fans/ ballast usage/dehumidifiers/deionizers, pumps and air conditioners or other items. The estimated cost of installing a garden indoors is between $1000- 2000. If hydroponics is the method of growing the added cost of $ 20/Wk for nutrients. Summary: Utilizing the estimated numbers provided by the City of Ukiah, approximately 250 Marijuana home gardens exist. We can clearly see that this will incur a large energy drain, especially during the summer season when rolling brownouts occur and energy conservation measures are put in place. We believe that this would cause a significant environmental impact, and is contrary to the policy of energy conservation put forth by the City of Ukiah. . Health and Safety - It is important to recognize that the patients we are discussing are under the care of a physician, licensed by the State of California, who has determined that they should use this medicine. We need to recognize the fact that many of these patients have compromised health, fixed income, many are disabled and do not have the skills, training or education necessary to maintain an indoor garden in a safe manner. . Molds, fungus and biological contaminants are a common occurrence in indoor gardens and affect the Indoor Air Quality significantly. For patients at risk this can be a deadly combination (please see exhibit D- Indoor Air Pollution- produced by the American Lung Association, EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Medical Association). We believe this is a significant and potentially cumulative environmental impact. We also contend that this will be a potential life threatening danger to the health and safety of some of our most vulnerable citizens in Ukiah. . Pesticides- It is well known that there are certain pests that frequently infest indoor gardens. These include spider mites, whiteflies, thrips, aphids, and numerous other pests. Our concern is bringing into a closed indoor environment pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and other substances that will potentially increase the cumulative effect of poisoning. ]lC:~rch 28, 2005 Pa~,,e 3 5. Fire Safety- The nature of electrical systems and the loads that can be placed on them is well understood by electricians. Many people do not have the funds to pay the cost of installation of the garden, major use fee, upkeep and the costs associated with an indoor marijuana garden. Human nature being what it is will find people installing electrical systems on their own with little or no guidance, thus increasing the fire danger. This is a serious health and safety issue and could put our entire city at risk. We contend that this poses a significant and potentially cumulative environmental impact. We also contend that this will present a potentially life threatening danger to the health and safety of some of our most vulnerable citizens in Ukiah. The costs to our citizens, environment and city are bound to be large. There are many other issues that need to be considered, and we have recommendations for potential solutions that will meet everyone's needs. These recommendations will be sent under separate cover in the near future. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us. R~pectfully, Dane Wilkins Executive Director Northern California NORML 175 Seminary Ave. #213 Ukiah, Ca 95482 (707) 462-5287 Attatchements: Exhibits A,B,C,D ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 05-10 Marijuana Cultivation Proposed Negative Declaration Response to Comments March 30, 2005 The proposed CEQA Negative Declaration for the marijuana cultivation regulations was completed in early March 2005, and the public review period extended from March 4TM through March 29th. One (1) comment letter was received and is attached to this document. ]:t was prepared and submitted by Mr. Dane Wilkins, Executive Director of the Northern California Chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The following text summarizes each comment and provides a response. Comment No. 1.' Environmental l~ssues ! Health and Safety: Electrical Use Hr. Wilkins expresses concern that if marijuana gardens are required to be grown exclusively indoors, as proposed in the regulations, electrical usage Citywide could spike dramatically, which could be problematic for the City's ability to provide electric service. He provides information indicating that a small indoor garden needs two 600 watt lighting fixtures. The lights would have to be on for 18-hours per day for the first 2- weeks (vegetative growth), and for 12-hours per day for the flowering stage of growth to maturity (approximately 6 weeks). He estimates that this lighting system would use approximately 5400 to 5450 kWh per month per small garden. He also indicates that it is his understanding that the City estimates that there could be 250 gardens in the City limits. He opines that 250 small indoor gardens using 5400 to 5450 kWh per month each could adversely impact the City's ability to provide electrical service to its customers. Response: Staff disagrees with Mr. Wilkins. The City Public Utilities Director performed the following calculation and arrived at a different conclusion. · 250 watts + 400 watts = 650 watts or O.6kW · 0.6kW x 30 days x 24 hours/day = 432 kWhr For 250 residences: · Energy: 432kWhr x 250 = 108,000 kWhr or 108 MWhr · Load: 0.6 kW x 250 =150 kW The Director of Public Utilities indicates that this load is very manageable (see attached email correspondence). Comment No. 2: Environmental ];$sues / Health and Safety: Disabled Hr. Wilkins indicates that many medical marijuana patients are have compromised health, are on fixed incomes, are disabled, and do not have the training and skill to successfully grow marijuana indoors. Response: This comment does not specifically pertain to the Negative Declaration; therefore no formal response is required. The comment is noted for the record. Comments No. 3and 4: Environmental :Issues ! Health and Safety: Molds, Fungus, Biological Contaminants, and Pesticides Mr. Wilkins indicates that molds, fungus and biological contaminants are a common occurrence in indoor gardens and affect indoor air quality. He believes that these contaminants represent a potentially significant adverse air quality impact. He submitted a document entitled ]:ndoor Air Pollution, published by the American Lung Association, American Medical Association, U.S. consumer Product Safety Commission, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support his findings. Response: No evidence was submitted that described molds, fungus and biological contaminants as a common problem with indoor marijuana gardens. However, it is reasonable to assume that the growing of six indoor marijuana plants could involve the use of fertilizers and insecticides if organic gardening methods are not practiced, and that some mold or fungus could result if the indoor gardens are not ventilated. However, because of the small number of plants that can be grown, it is concluded that large amounts of fertilizers and insecticides would not be used, and if these substances are carefully used according to the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations, no hazards to health would result. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that the small number of plants would not produce an unhealthy amount of mold or fungus. In fact, research reveals that if marijuana plants contract mold and mildew, it is common practice to remove the mold and fungus or the entire plant so it does not spread to another plant. It is understood that the successful growing of indoor marijuana can be accomplished with the same types of fertilizers used on ordinary house plants - the three main ingredients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. A different level of these basic non- toxic nutrients is required during different stages of growth (Growing Marijuana - Extensive Growing Guide pp. 12-13 of 22. www. growingmariiuana.org). A literature search on indoor marijuana pests reveals a variety of cost-saving and safe techniques for controlling the most common indoor marijuana pests - mites, aphids, and whiteflies. These include homemade and commercial soap sprays, such as Dr. Bonnars Biodegradable Soap and Safer Insecticidal Soap, which eliminate aphids. Tobacco juice and chili pepper powder are widely used home remedies for mites (Growing Marijuana - Extensive Growing Guide pp. 12-13 of 22. wwvv. qrowingmaril'uana, or.q). Another publication indicates that a common organic method of controlling all indoor marijuana pests is ivory soap flakes mixed up into a lather and spread over the plant (Marijuana - Indoor Mari./uana Cultivation. www. a lb2c3, com/drugs/mjgrowl, html) Staff is able to conclude that growing indoor marijuana can be accomplished in a safe manner, even with the need for fertilizers and pest control, and occasional outbreaks of mold on the plants. While it is unreasonable to assume that all indoor marijuana growers will choose organic methods, it is equally unreasonable to assume that they will all use non-organic fertilizers and pesticides in a hap-hazard and unsafe manner. Staff is able to conclude that requiring marijuana to be grown indoors would not have a direct or indirect significant adverse impact on the health and safety of people. Comment No. 5.' Environmental Issues ! Health and Safety.' Fire Safety Mr. Wilkins comments that forcing medical marijuana patients to grow indoors will increase fire dangers because people will install electrical systems on their own without the assistance of an electrical contractor and the benefit of permits. Response: There is no evidence that all medical marijuana patients will attempt to install their own electrical equipment to set up an indoor marijuana garden. Additionally, the option of growing in a greenhouse exists with the proposed ordinance. Extensive lighting, venting, and other electrical equipment are not needed with greenhouse growing. Additionally, research reveals that marijuana can be successfully grown indoors with fluorescent lights, which are a common household fixture www. alb2c3, corn/drugs/rnjgrowl.htrnl). While the yield and speed of growing may not be optimal, fluorescent lighting provides a viable option, particularly for growers without the funds to buy sophisticated equipment. Staff is able to conclude that while it is reasonable to assume that some medical marijuana patients may improperly install electrical equipment to grow indoors, no evidence exists suggesting that this represents a significant adverse environmental impact. CONCLUSION: Staff is able to conclude that the comments received on the Negative Declaration do not result in new significant adverse impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. All the comments have been responded to, and Staff believes that a Negative declaration is appropriate for the project. Page 1 of 2 Charley Stump From: Bernie Ziemianek [berniez@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:53 AM To: 'Charley Stump' Subject: RE: Marijuana Cultivation Charlie, That's correct. However, the energy requirement would be approx 216 kWh, not MWh. Also, I noticed I made a mistake in the previous calculation. I forgot to add in 50 watts. I made a mistake by adding 250W + 400W and getting 600 watts instead of 650 watts. No big deal. ..... Original Message ..... From: Charley Stump [mailto:charleys@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:3! AN To: berniez@cityofukiah.com Subject: RE: Marijuana Cultivation Bernie: Thanks again for the calcs. I assume that if the indoor grower used two (2) 600 watt light fixtures, the total energy and load would double to 216 MWh (energy) and 300 kW (load). Is this still "very manageable?" Thanks - Charley ..... Original Message ..... From: Bernie Ziemianek [mailto:berniez@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:41 AM To: 'Charley Stump' Cc: candace@cityofukiah.com Subject; RE: Marijuana Cultivation Charlie, Here are the calcs: 250 watts + 400 watts = 600 watts or 0.6 kW 0.6 kW x 30 days x 24 hrs/day = 432 kWhr Now, If you are still looking at 250 residences.., this works out to be: Energy: 432 kWhr x 250 = 108,000kWhr or 108 MWhr Load: 0.6 kW x 250 =150 kW This load is very manageable! ..... Original Message ..... From: Charley Stump [mailto:charleys@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 8:35 AM To: berniez@cityofukiah.com Subject: Marijuana Cultivation 5/12/2005 Page 2 of 2 Bernie: I've done some research. I found out that to 9.row six "high quality" plants indoors, it is common to use one (i) 250 watt high pressure sodium light and one (1) 400 watt high pressure sodium light. Assuming that the lights are on 8-hours per day, how many kWh of electricity would be used per month? Thanks for your help - Charley 5/12/2005 City of Ukiah Staff Report to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING / WORKSHOP #3 Zoning Code Amendment 05-10 Marijuana Cultivation Regulations June 8, 2005 Item No. 9D SUMMARY: On April 13th and May 25th, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings/workshops to discuss draft marijuana cultivation regulations. Testimony was provided from citizens in support and opposed to the regulations and from a number of organized groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Medical Marijuana Patients Union (MMPU). At the conclusion of the May 25th discussion, the Commission indicated that they had received an ample amount of information and were ready to begin crafting a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was continued to the .]une 8th meeting to accomplish that task. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the proposed Ordinance page-by-page, adding and striking language to form a recommended set of regulations to the City Council. THE PROPOSED DRAFT REGULAT]:ONS: The project involves adding Section 9254 to the City Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Marijuana Cultivation." The proposed regulations permit the cultivation of the marijuana in all three residential zoning districts and in the Neighborhood Commercial district (C-N) with the securing of a Use Permit. The proposed regulations limit the number of plants to six (6), and the owner of the property must be a qualified patient. ]:n addition, the regulations prohibit marijuana from being grown within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The plants must also be located in an indoor secure location. The proposed regulations permit marijuana to be grown in the C-1 (community commercial), C-2 (heavy commercial), M (manufacturing), A (agricultural), and A-E (agriculture exclusive) zoning districts, provided no more than 12 immature and six mature plants per qualified patient are grown; the owner of the property must be a qualified patient or a primary caregiver, the parcel cannot be within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm; and the plants must be grown in an indoor secure location. THE CAMMP RECOMMENDAT]:ONS: Prior to the May 25th meeting, the C/t/zens ,4dv/sory on Med/ca/ /Vlar/juana Po//£? submitted a set of guidelines for regulating medical marijuana in the community. suggested that the City donate city-owned property for use as a community marijuana garden that would be managed by a Medical Harijuana Advisory Board made up of a range of stakeholders. The advisory board would also be responsible for addressing issues and grievances, and for identifying solutions to public health and safety issues. Attachment Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing No. 3 Mar,juana Cultivation Regulabons June 8, 2005 The CAHP1P also suggested that the City allow individual outdoor growing in yards with locked fences, provided the gardens do not exceed the Mendocino County guideline of a ZOO-square foot canopy of plants, that the plants be a minimum of 5-feet from property lines, and that no cultivation be allowed on property adjacent to a school, park, or drug rehabilitation center. At the May 25th meeting, the CAMrvlp stated that its primary focus was now to urge the City to create a FleW/cai Plar/juana Oversight and Review Comm/s.~/on. In support of this recommendation, it submitted a draft Ordinance (attached). Staff recommends that after reviewing the City generated Ordinance for the regulation of marijuana cultivation, the Commission discuss and form a recommendation to the City Council concerning the CAMIVlp Pled/cai Nar/juana Oversight and Review Commission Ordinance. PRIMARY ISSUES: The following text lists the primary issues and Staff recommendations: Total Number of Plants: This issue is difficult because as the public testimony revealed, some patients only need small amounts of marijuana while others need large amounts depending upon their illness. Additionally, while marijuana is generally regarded as a hardy plant, the yield of an individual plant can vary dramatically depending upon where it is grown, the soil, solar exposure, watering schedule, fertilizing technique, type of plant, whether the plant receives regular care, rodent and insect damage, and other factors. However, it would seem reasonable to assume that if a medical marijuana patient could not afford the dispensary prices and decided to grow his/her own medicine, the importance of the health and yield of the plants would dictate a well-cared for, inconspicuous, and fastidious gardening effort. Based on Senate Bill 420, the City attorney recommends that the Ordinance permit six mature or twelve immature plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver per parcel. The CiW Attorney has concluded that establishing a maximum per parcel number of plants would be inconsistent with SB 420, and therefore would be inappropriate. It was suggested during public testimony that the regulations be consistent with the District Attorney's standard of permitting a 100 square foot canopy of plants per patient or primary caregiver rather than limiting the plants to the number permitted by SB 420. Public testimony revealed that for most growers, this would result in more than six mature plants, but for the experienced grower, it may only mean three large plants. Regardless, Staff is recommending a maximum of two outdoor plants per patient or qualified caregiver to limit the size and visibility of an outdoor growing area. In Staff's opinion, permitting a 100 square foot outdoor canopy is inconsistent with the goal of keeping outdoor growing inconspicuous. Indoor vs. Outdoor Growing: Based on the testimony provided during the public hearings/workshops, as well as considerable research, it is Staff's conclusion that mandatory indoor growing is too onerous in terms of cost and needed expertise, and typically results in much less yield as compared to outdoor growing. Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing No 3 Marijuana Cultivation Regulations June 8, 2005 The primary problem associated with outdoor growing in residential neighborhoods is bold, over- zealous cultivators who disregard the concerns of their neighbors. To balance the need for providing a relatively inexpensive, easy, and convenient way to cultivate medical marijuana, and to eliminate neighborhood safety and nuisance issues, Staff suggests that the regulations allow the growing of a maximum of two outdoor plants per patient or primary caregiver provided they are located a minimum of fifteen feet from the property lines and not over six feet in height. The remaining four plants per patient or primary caregiver would have to be grown in a locked structure such as a greenhouse, garage, or residence. The property would have to be fenced and all gates secured with locks. ]:t is suggested further that no more than four plants be permitted to be grown outdoors regardless of how many patients or primary caregivers reside on a parcel. Distance from Public Assembly: The propose Ordinance states that medical marijuana cannot be cultivated within 300 feet of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The CAMMP has suggested that the prohibition be limited to parcels adjacent to a school, park or drug rehabilitation center. The intent of the Staff proposed prohibition is to limit marijuana cultivation and the potential safety issues surrounding it to areas devoid of assemblies of people, particularly children. Staff is able to conclude that because of potential safety issues, it is reasonable to prohibit marijuana cultivation within 300-feet of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assembly facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. MEDICAL MARZ.1UANA OVERSI:GHT AND REVI:EW COMMI:SS:ION: Staff believes that the general concept of establishing a Commission or Committee to act as an advisory body to the City Council in terms of promoting the responsible and safe cultivation and use of medical marijuana has merit. However, there would be a need for Staff support and resources, which are extremely limited. Additionally, Staff believes that regulations are necessary, and we do not support abandoning the regulations in favor of the establishment of an oversight and review committee. The City Attorney is currently reviewing the proposed Ordinance submitted by the CAMMP, and Staff will provide his comments at the 3une 8TM meeting. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission has conducted two well-attended public hearings/workshops to discuss the proposed Ordinance regulating the cultivation of marijuana in the City limits. The Commission has received a substantial amount of information from both medical marijuana advocates and residents who have safety and nuisance concerns. It is clear that regulations are needed that permit legitimate marijuana patients and qualified primary caregivers to cultivate their medicine in a way that does not create an attractive nuisance that leads to serious safety problems in residential neighborhoods. Staff believes that this can be achieved by permitting a limited number of plants to be carefully grown outdoors, and the remainder to be cultivated in a secure greenhouse, garage or residence. "Carefully grown" would mean the maintenance of a inconspicuous garden of no more than two plants per patient or primary caregiver (maximum four per parcel); limiting the height to six feet (maximum fence height); keeping the garden fifteen feet from the fence lines; and making sure that all gates are locked. Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing No. 3 Marijuana Cultivation Regulations June 8, 2005 A statement was made at the last public hearing/workshop that the proposed Ordinance violates Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420. The City Attorney disagrees, and has indicated that it has been crafted to be consistent with these two laws. ENVZRONIqENTAL REVIEW: Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study to analyze the potential impacts and concluded that the proposed regulations would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. We prepared a Negative Declaration and provided the required public review and comment period. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) submitted comments on the document. No other comments were received. Mr. Dane Wilkins, Executive Director of the Northern California NORML expressed concern that the proposed Negative Declaration did not adequately address health and safety issues. Responses have been prepared to the comments and have been shared with Mr. Wilkens. Based on information gathered during the review process, modifications have been made to the text of the Ordinance. However, these modifications are minor in nature, and do not substantially change the analysis, findings or conclusions of the Negative Declaration. Nor do the modifications create new potentially significant adverse environmental impacts or the need for new mitigation measures. Therefore it is concluded that the Negative Declaration does not need to be recirculated for public review and comment. Staff recommends that the Commission make necessary minor modifications to the proposed Negative Declaration and recommend its adoption to the City Council. RECOMMENDATJ:ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Review the proposed Ordinance page-by-page and add, delete, or modify language; and 2) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Negative Declaration; and 3) Formulate a recommendation on the Ordinance to the City Council. ATTACH Iq ENTS: 1. 2. 3. Draft Ordinance Proposed Negative Declaration (Previously distributed) Negative Declaration comment letter received from NORML, dated march 24, 2005 (Copy with attachments to Commission only). 4. Response to Comments received on the Negative Declaration 5. Draft Ordinance submitted by CAMMP on May 25, 2005 (previously received) Comn~'nity Development St~ ~/_/e~or Planning Commission Public Workshop/Hearing No 3 Marijuana Cultivation Regulations June 8, 2005 Attachment # ON A MOTION by Commissioner Pruden, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the Commissioners to approve Major Use Permit 04-08 with Findings 1-13 and Conditions of Approval 1-31 with modifications to Condition of Approval No. 8, as outlined in the staff report, and as discussed above. 5D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 05-10: Marijuana Cultivation (Continued from April 13, 2005). Proposed amendments to the Ukiah Municipal code Section 9254 to regulate the cultivation of marijuana by requiring a Use Permit, limiting the number of plants, requiring the owner of the property to be a qualified patient, prohibiting growing in close proximity to schools, parks, churches, etc., requiring the plants to be grown indoors, and other measures to ensure public safety. CONTINUED FROM MAY 25, 2005). Planning Director Stump addressed the staff report as follows: The Planning Commission conducted two public hearings concerning the draft marijuana cultivation regulations where input from citizens and groups/agencies in support and opposed to the regulation provided testimony and input. · The project involves adding Section 9254 to the City Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Marijuana Cultivation." The regulations permit the cultivation of marijuana in all three residential zoning districts and in the Neighborhood commercial district (C-N) with the securing of a Use Permit. · The regulations would limit the number of plans to six, and the owner of the property must be a qualified patient. The regulations prohibit marijuana from being grown within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assemble facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. The plants must also be located in an indoor secure location. · The regulations permit marijuana to be grown in the C-1, C-2, M, A, and A-E zoning districts, provided no more than 12 immature and six mature plants per qualified patient are grown; the owner of the property must be qualified patient or a primary caregiver, the parcel cannot be within 300-feet from an educational facility, park or recreational center, religious assemble facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm; and the plants must be grown in an indoor secure location. · The Citizens Advisory on Medical Marijuana Policy (CAMMP) submitted a set of guidelines for regulating medical marijuana in the community, which suggested that the City donate City-owned property for use as a community marijuana garden that would be managed by a Medical Marijuana Advisory Board for issues and grievances, and for identifying solutions to public health and safety issues. CAMMP suggested the City allow individual outdoor growing in yards with locked fences provided the gardens do not exceed the Mendocino County guideline of a 100- square foot canopy of plants, that the plants be a minimum of five feet from property lines, and that no cultivation be allowed on property adjacent to a school, park, or drug rehabilitation center. CAMMP is primarily interested in urging the City to create Medical Marijuana Oversight and Review Commission, in which an ordinance was drafted in support of. A copy of the proposed ordinance is included in the staff report for review by the Planning Commission. · Staff noted the primary issues concerning the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes involve the following: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 23 June 8,2005 · Total number of plants. While some patients need only a small amount of marijuana, others need large amounts depending upon their illness. If a medical marijuana patient cannot afford the dispensary prices and decided to grow his/her own medicine, the importance of health and yield of plants would require a well-cared for, inconspicuous, and fastidious gardening effort. The City Attorney, based on Senate Bill 420, recommends that the City ordinance permit six mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver per parcel, and concluded that establishing a maximum per parcel number of plants would be inconsistent with Senate Bill 420, and therefore, inappropriate. Public testimony concerning the above-referenced issue, demonstrates that the regulations be consistent with the District Attorney's standard of permitting a 100 square foot canopy of plants per patient or primary caregiver rather than limitinq the number permitted by SB420. Public testimony indicated that this would result in more than six mature plants, but for the experienced grower, it may only mean three large plants. Staff recommends a maximum of two outdoor plants per patient or qualified caregiver to limit the size and visibility of an outdoor growing area. Permitting a 100-square foot outdoor canopy is inconsistent with the purpose of keeping outdoor growing inconspicuous. · Indoor versus outdoor growing. Staff has concluded that mandatory indoor growing is too onerous relative to cost and growing expertise, which would likely yield much less of an quantity as compared to outdoor growing. The primary problem associated with outdoor growing in residential neighborhoods is that over-zealous cultivators disregard neighborhood concerns. Therefore, staff recommends allowing medical marijuana users or qualified caregivers to grow a maximum of two outdoor plants per patient or primary caregiver a minimum of 15 feet from the property lines not over six feet in height. The remaining three plants per patient or primary caregiver must be grown in a locked structure such as a greenhouse, garage, or residence. The property would have to be fenced and all gates secured with locks. Moreover, no more than four plants could be grown outdoors regardless of how many patients or primary caregivers reside on a parcel. Distance from Public Assembly. CAMMP recommends such restriction be limited to a school, park or drug rehabilitation center. However, staff concluded that because of potential safety issues, it is reasonable that marijuana cultivated be prohibited within 300 feet of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assemble facility, or a facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. Staff believes that the concept of providing a committee/commission to act as an advisory body to the City has merit. THEREFORE: Staff understands that regulations are necessary to allow legitimate marijuana patients and qualified primary caregivers to cultivate marijuana such that the process does not create a nuisance that leads to safety problems in residential neighborhoods, which can be achieved by permitting a limited number of plants to be carefully grown outdoors, and the remainder to be cultivated in a secure greenhouse, etc. That the cultivation of marijuana be done in an inconspicuous garden of no more than two plants per patient or primary caregiver with a maximum of four plants per parcel, limiting the height to six feet, keeping the garden 15 feet from the fence lines, and ensuring all gates are locked. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 24 June 8,2005 The staff report contains a copy of the proposed draft ordinance regulations. It was the consensus of the Commissioners present to conclude that the best approach to review the draft ordinance would be section by section while allowing for public testimony, provided it is constructive input and relevant to the section discussion. Commissioner Pruden presented the Commission with a list of her proposed draft ordinance modifications for consideration. Discussion concerning "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Ukiah Adding Section 9254, Entitled 'Marijuana Cultivation,' to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code" is as follows: PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10:20 p.m. Section One Dana Wilkins, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), addressed a federal law rendering concerning the cultivation of marijuana in conjunction with state law, and stated California has spoken overwhelming in support of the medical marijuana cultivation even though federal law continues to criminalize and conflict with California law regarding the use of physician-recommended medicine. The Commission was provided with a copy to review relative to the publication from Americans for Safe Access relevant to the Attorney General Lockyer issues statement on the recent US Supreme Court's medical marijuana ruling. Pebbles Trippettt and Ed Valentine did not favor the Commission's approach concerning review of the draft ordinance. Chair Mulheren stated the public has had two separate public hearing opportunities to provide input/comments concerning the draft ordinance, in which staff and the City Attorney have taken into consideration and responded. Tonight's objective is to review the ordinance by section to add, delete, or modify language, and hopefully make a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the document. The Commission can make a recommendation the City Council on the proposed Negative Declaration. Commissioner Pruden referenced item 11 that limits the number of plants per parcel, and recommended the language be modified because of staff's explanation that the number of plants cannot be limited per parcel. She suggested that subsection 11 may have to be eliminated and recommended it be flagged for further consideration relevant to the issues of limiting the number of plants per parcel and requiring indoor growth. Commission Whetzel questioned the reason why the issue of limiting the number of plants per parcel is being rejected. Mr. Stump stated the City Attorney is concerned that if the number of plants were limited per parcel, the City ordinance would be in violation of SB 420, which says that a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. The Senate Bill goes on to say that in addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 25 June 8,2005 plants per qualified patient. So if there are two qualified marijuana patients on one parcel, they are each entitled to six mature or 12 immature plants according to SB 420. If the ordinance were to require only six plants for those two patients, the ordinance would violate the senate bill. Chair Mulheren inquired relevant to staff's conclusion that limits the outdoor growing to two plants and growing the remainder indoors, as to how would the language be worded. Mr. Stump stated the language and/or approach to modifying it would depend upon how the Commission reacts to other language in the ordinance. He suggested this subsection be flagged. Commissioner Pruden referenced subsection 14, and recommended all the language in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 be included in this subsection that reads, "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." The most important element is the qualities, the eight ounces of dried marijuana and the six mature and 12 immature marijuana plants. The ordinance must be real clear on the quantity. Mr. Stump supports this recommendation, as the source is SB 420. It was the consensus of the Commission to support the above-referenced recommendation. Commissioner Pruden recommended inserting verbatim a subsection between subsections 14 and 15 taken directly from the draft ordinance prepared by CAMMP that includes the two introductory paragraphs relative to Section One, Declaration Policy. Pebbles Trippett does not agree with staff regarding the yield amount. Commissioner Whetzel stated the intent is not focus on the yield, but the number of plants. Clark Ram commented the primary focus of the ordinance should be to uphold the law. He briefly addressed the manner in which complaints are documented, and emphasized that any person can make a complaint just like anyone can sue someone. He referenced subsection 6, and stated the policy and corresponding language intent should be to uphold Proposition 215. He commented that just because some medical marijuana patients/qualified caregivers are over-zealous, does not mean others follow suit. Chair Mulheren commented the ordinance is also crafted to protect the rights of citizens, and a balance must be made between the issues relative to the supporters and non- supporters of the ordinance. Clark Ram supported the elimination of subsection 11. Mr. Ram commented on subsection 13 that states, "According to Cannabis Yields by the DEA, various types of cannabis plants under various planting conditions may yield averages of 236 grams, or about one half pound, to 846 grams, or nearly two pounds. A weighted average results in an average domestic plant yield of 448 grams, or approximately 1 pound per plant," and stated the DEA tends to inflate their statistics. While it is true that the yield reported by the DEA is possible, the yield stated would only occur under ideal growing MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 26 June 8,2005 conditions. For example, a healthy, mature two-pound plant grown outdoors under optimum growing conditions could take up the entire 10-foot canopy. It was noted that public members that do not fully support the proposed draft ordinance, and indicated that subsection 13 is not an accurate statistic. Even though the stated yield is possible, it does not fairly represent the weighted average or accurate number. Elimination of this subsection was recommended. Commissioner Pruden stated the objective of tonight's ordinance review is to make the document realistic. Commissioner Pruden replied the reason she recommended amending subsection 14 is to allow the Health and Safety Code Section to set an acceptable standard as opposed to heavily concentrating on the statistical aspects as provided for in subsection 13. Mr. Ram stated subsections 14 and 15 correspond with one another. Subsection 16 appears to be a standard disclaimer. John McCowen stated subsection 13 is accurate. The statistical information was derived by the DEA and is simply a factual statement. People may disagree with how the DEA arrived at the information and/or whether or not the information is accurate under all conditions. He recommended that since the ordinance is being reviewed point-by-point that all public testimony be directed to the subject matter being discussed rather voicing a person's philosophy/opinion of the issue of medical marijuana cultivation. There have been two previous workshops that already allowed such public testimony. Sow Bug does not agree with the statistical information contained in subsection 13, and stated the information is exaggerated. Eric Valentine briefly addressed the issue of the Cannabis Yield provided by the DEA. Chair Mulheren stated the Commission recognizes that "Cannabis Yield" is a statement made by the DEA and does not question this statistic. Eric Valentine questioned the number of plants and the associated assumptions concerning the yield in connection with where marijuana can be grown under conditions that realistically produces the kind of yield the DEA states can be attained. Commissioner Pruden stated the intent of tonight's discussion is to produce an ordinance that matches State law. She recommended Mr. Valentine defer his questions concerning growing conditions during discussion of section two of the ordinance. Pebbles Trippett stated subsection 6 is not accurate. Chair Mulheren stated no modifications are recommended to subsection 6. Section Two Commissioner Pruden referred to Section 9254, Marijuana Cultivation, Section A, Definitions, and agreed with all the definitions except for #7, "secure location." The proposed ordinance states, "Secure location means a space within a building or structure MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 27 June 8,2005 which can only be entered through a locked door that requires a key or combination to open and which is secure against unauthorized entry." She inquired whether the aforementioned definition is adequate to address growing in a greenhouse. Mr. Stump replied "yes," since this definition refers to a secure location as being a building or structure. He recommended no modification of this subsection. Commissioner Pruden referred to Section B, Marijuana Cultivation in Residential Zoning Districts, subsection 1 that reads, "No more than six marijuana plants may be grown on a parcel," and recommended the language be modified to read, "A qualified patient or primary caregiver may grow no more than six plants in a secured outdoor location, regardless of the number of cards held by the residents of said parcel." The exception would allow two plants of the six may be grown freestanding that must be 15 feet from the property line. Therefore, no more than six plants can be grown in a secure outdoor location that would include a greenhouse. Two of these plants would not have to be in the greenhouse since staff has allowed that two freestanding plants would be acceptable as outlined in the staff report provided they remain 15 feet from the property line. Chair Mulheren inquired regarding the definition of a "secure outdoor location." Mr. Stump recommended the language read, "a secure indoor location." A greenhouse is considered an indoor growing option. Commissioner Pruden inquired whether the Commission agreed that a total of six plants should be allowed outside of the residence. She recommended subsection "a" of section 1 read, "all additional plants allowed by law must be grown indoors." In other words, the maximum amount that can be grown outdoors would be six plants regardless of the number of cards held per person in a household where the remaining balance would have to grown indoors. Chair Mulheren favored the concept of allowing two marijuana plants to be grown outdoors, which would be a reasonable yield for a legitimate medical marijuana patient and/or for a maximum of four to be grown outdoors provided he/she is the primary caregiver growing for two different persons with the remaining amount of plants to be grown indoors either in the residence/garage/greenhouse or other secure location. Commissioner Pruden requested clarification of the above-referenced comment. Chair Mulheren stated if a person is a medical marijuana patient with six mature plants, two would be allowed to be grown outdoors while the four remaining number of plants must be grown indoors in a residence/garage/greenhouse or other secure location. If a person is a primary caregiver for more than one patient, a maximum of four plants would be allowed to be grown outdoors. Commissioner Pruden questioned the method for differentiating between the concept of indoor versus interior. Chair Mulheren stated the two terms are synonymous with one another. Mr. Stump stated the term "indoors" refers to a residence, garage, shed, greenhouse, and/or any structure that is enclosed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 28 June 8,2005 Commissioner Pruden uses the term "freestanding" in place of "outdoor" relevant to growing marijuana outside. It was noted that staff uses the term "outdoor" when referencing the growing of plants outside. Commissioner Pruden questioned with the aforementioned terminology discussions would it be acceptable for a person to grow as many plants as can fit in a greenhouse. Commissioner Whetzel replied provided the number of plants does not exceed the 10 by 10 plant coverage concept. Commissioner Pruden stated there has been no discussion concerning the size of a greenhouse. She recommended in subsection "b" under section 1 read, "secure outdoor locations must meet all setback requirements as defined in the zoning codes for accessory buildings." Mr. Stump recommended section B in subsection 1 concerning the definitions of indoor versus outdoor growing, be modified to be consistent with SB 420 that no more than six mature or 12 immature plants be grown per legitimate patient or primary caregiver. Commissioner Pruden stated the present discussion concerns the issue of location. Mr. Stump stated subsection 5 in section two addresses the issue of location. Section B 1 addresses the number of plants. He recommended adding language to section 5 that states, "However, two of the plants per legitimate patient or qualified caregiver may be grown outdoors provided they are 15 feet from the property line, the property must be fenced and all gates secured with locks, and the height of the plants not exceed six feet." This language addresses the location. Commissioner Pruden addressed the issue of a secure location such as a greenhouse and whether the size of the greenhouse should be determined. Commissioner Whetzel stated the dimensions should not exceed the 100 square foot canopy and/or 10 feet by 10 feet criteria. Mr. Stump stated the issue is not the canopy dimensions but rather the number of plants so the greenhouse can be as large as person desires to make it provided it complies with building and zoning laws. If the Commission agrees with the language contained in section B 1, this language is consistent with SB 420. Therefore, this section establishes/addresses the number of plants. Commissioner Pruden inquired whether her recommended language that secured outdoor locations must meet all setback requirements as defined in the zoning code for accessory buildings should be included in this section. Mr. Stump stated this language is addressed in subsection 5 on page 5 of the ordinance. Commissioner Pruden replied this section only states that the plants must be located in an indoor secure location. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 29 June 8,2005 Commissioner Whetzel stated subsection 6 of section two addresses the code compliance issue for structures. Mr. Stump recommended subsection 5 be modified to read, "The plants must be located in an indoor secure location. However, two of the plants per legitimate patient or qualified caregiver may be grown outdoors provided they are situated 15 feet from the property line, the property is secured behind a locked fenced, and the plants do not exceed the height of the six-foot fence." This language provides the number of plants outdoors and where the plants can be located on the site to address the issues that have been raised about neighborhood compatibility. A general discussion followed regarding whether the pertinent zoning code compliance and indoor plant-growing issues are fully addressed for accessory buildings. Commission Pruden inquired whether the issue of compliance with zoning regulations should be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Stump replied it is not necessary. Commissioner Pruden requested clarified that a person desiring to construct an accessory building for purposes of cultivating marijuana must comply with the all the standard uniform building-related codes as with any other building regardless of use. Mr. Stump replied "yes." It was the consensus of the Commission to agree with the language proposed for subsection 5, as recommended by staff. Staff recommends that a residence can have two freestanding plants per patient with a maximum of four plants allowed to be cultivated outdoors regardless of how many persons residing in the house have authorized medical marijuana cards. John McCowen recommended rather than formulating into the language the presumption that anyone coming forward can have outdoors plants that language be inserted tying it to certain criteria. He recommended such language be inserted after the SB 420 language that specifies six mature marijuana plants and 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient or primary caregiver. The language could read, "However, based on lot size, configuration, adjacent zoninq, land use, density, and other relevant factors, the use permit applicant may request that not more than two plants per qualified patient not have more than four plants per parcel, be grown outdoors." Chair Mulheren inquired how this language differs from what was discussed above. John McCowen stated the intent is for the language relative to two plants per qualified patient not have more than four plants per parcel be grown outdoors be subject to certain criteria such as lot size, configuration, zoning, land use, density, setback requirements, etc. Mr. Stump addressed Mr. McCowen's comment, and stated not every parcel is as appropriate as another parcel for the outdoor growing of marijuana. This issue generated from public testimony regarding the yield factor. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 30 June 8,2005 The Commissioner recommended staff craft language that would address certain criteria to determine whether or not outdoor growing is appropriate for a particular parcel rather just allowing anyone to grow a couple of plants outdoors. It was noted the intent of the ordinance is not to force the issue of using marijuana for medicinal purpose to the "black-market. Eric Valentine stated referred to subsection 7, and commented that a secure location is a person's fenced backyard. A person should not have to spend extra money to construct and pay the necessary permit fees to build the outside structure. People can also improvise such as using trusses to grow marijuana. A public member commented on the matter of two plants being sufficient for any legitimate medical marijuana patient, and noted the statement to be "ridiculous." Two plants for an entire year for medicine is not an accurate figure. She understands the City's need to regulate the cultivation of marijuana through an ordinance to protect neighborhoods while experiencing enforcement problems with the County District Attorney on this issue, which is the reason some people take advantage of SB 420 and become over-zealous. She stated being allowed to grow six mature plants in the backyard is "not a big deal." A public member supported the language proposed by Planning Director Stump. Commissioner Pruden stated some regulation is necessary and being allowed to grow six mature plants is a "big deal" by taking into consider all the parcels in the City limits if everyone cultivated six outdoor plants, nuisances and other types of impacts would occur in neighborhoods, even with the 300-foot requirement that a parcel cannot be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assemble, or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm. Charles Quinley recommended patients desiring to grow their own marijuana can use filters to reduce the odor nuisance. Commissioner Pruden referred to subsection 4 that reads, "The parcel must be located not less than 300 feet from the grounds of an educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assemble, or facility catering to children, the elderly or the infirm," and recommended that no outdoor growing of any number of medical marijuana within 300 feet of ...... and anyone growing in an indoor secure location may grow closer than the required 300 feet because certain for parcels in the City the 300 foot requirement is not because of choice. Chair Mulheren stated the odor issue would still be a problem. Commissioner Whetzel recommended subsection 4 remain as written. Mr. Stump stated since a use permit is required for the growing of marijuana, he recommended language be added at the end of section 4 that states, "Unless through the Use Permit process, a closer location is deemed to be safe and non-hazardous to the public health, safety, and welfare of people." The growing of two outdoor plants represents a reasonable number of plants. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 31 June 8,2005 Commissioner Pruden questioned what neighborhood other than the Wagonseller neighborhood, for instance, is not subject to the 300-foot requirement, and recommended some modification of the language relative to subsection 4. Mr. Stump stated through the use permit process it may be necessary to require that particular findings be made that the growing would not be a detrimental situation to the educational facility, park or recreation center, religious assemble, or facility catering to children ....... etc., with the inclusion of an exception clause, as well as some flexibility in the event a parcel is within 295 feet, for example, from the type of facilities referenced-above. Commissioner Pruden recommended further review of subsection 4 because this requirement basically exempts a majority of the City. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Mr. Stump's recommendation regarding incorporating an exception clause and allowing for some flexibility concerning the subsection 4. A general discussion followed regarding subsection 4 and the need for flexibility. Commissioner Pruden referred to subsection C, Marijuana Cultivation in Non-residential Zoning Districts, and suggested a distinct re-formatting be made so it is made very clear that the ordinance addresses two different kinds of zoning, residential and commercial. Mr. Stump replied the ordinance does address these zoning components. Commissioner Pruden recommended making a clear distinction in the ordinance relative to the two separate zoning designations. Mr. Stump stated inserting a chapter heading or other related formatting style would make the distinction. A general discussion followed regarding application of the ordinance in residential and commercial zoning districts relative to application of the ordinance relative to residential land uses in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Mr. Stump recommended the addition of a sentence to the opening paragraph to section C that states, "legal non-conforming residential land uses in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts shall be subject to the residential standards for the cultivation of marijuana rather than the commercial standards for the cultivation of marijuana." Section Three No changes were recommended for this section. Commissioner Pruden recommended adding an "Enforcement Clause" to Section 3 that states, "Complaints shall follow standard code enforcement protocol for this ordinance; which is one formal complaint will require Planning Department staff and the City Police Department staff to investigate said complaint and will issue a response to the complainant and issue, if necessary, paperwork requiring mitigation, compliance, and/or abatement of violations." "If further resolution is necessary, the matter go to the Citizen's Advisory Board for "good neighbor" mediation with a status report within 14 days of referral. The Citizen's MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 32 June 8,2005 Advisory Board shall be an advisory board to City staff, Planning Commission, and the Ukiah City Council." Mr. Stump agreed with the language and stated staff will review it. The Commission recommended further review of Section One, subsection 11, if the number of plants cannot be identified by parcel. Mr. Stump recommended staff amend the language in subsection 11 to be consistent with the other amendments made. Chair Mulheren recommended re-wording subsection 11 without eliminating it. Commission Pruden stated that persons questioning or disagreeing with a particular section of the ordinance go through the process of requesting/petitioning to have the matter reviewed by the Ukiah City Council. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 12:37 a.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the proposed Regulations, as modified above. 5E. 10. 10A. City Code Amendment - Revised Sign Regulations: Proposed amendments to the Ukiah City Code to revise the existing sign regulations. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 22, 2005). ONGOING EDUCATION Economic Development: The City of Marysville's Downtown Strateqic Plan by Gary w. Price, Planning and Community Development Department Newsletter, League of California Cities, Spring 2005. The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioners' review. 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was no discussion of this agenda item. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS There was no discussion of this agenda item. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:41 a.m. James Mulheren, Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Page 33 June 8,2005 __ DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDII~ ANCE OF TIt~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AD SECTION , ENTrlYLED: -MEDICAL MARIJUANA OVERSIGHT I~]gVIEW COMMISSION," TO DIVISION 9, Ordinance 2, ARTICLE 19 OF UKIAH CITY CODE The City Co~mcil of the City. of Ukiah hereby ordains as follows: SECTION ONE: DECLARATION OF POLICY The City Council hereby finds and declares as follows: It is the policy of the City of Uld~ to have a system of coord inated plasmin medical martjuana cultivation and dispensing to pro_vide for thc safe and affordable access of m¢,:lical marijuana to the seriously ill persons who need it, ~&ilc minimiz crime and otter nuisances to neighbors ami others. To facilitate this goal it is the p of the City, t,~ have the Medical Marijuana Review and Oversight Cmamission: (1: promote the responsible conduct and operation of medical marijuana gardens ~ dispevaarie~; (2) tbster harm reduction policies, including but not lim~.'..ed to reducti risks from fires, odor, and theft; (3) develop and recommend to the Mayor and CiW Council "good neighbor policies" that appropriately balance tl~e needs of medical marijumua patients with the needs of resic~ents and businesses in the vi¢irtity of me~ marijuana gardens and dispensaries; (4) mediate disputes, between persons affected medical mmjuana gardem and dispensaries, and the medical marij ~na patients wi them, and 15) provide intb~ion regarding safe and responsible medical marijuan g;adens and dispensaries SE('TION TWO: DEFINITIONS Section is hereby added to Division 9, Ordinance 2, Axticle 19 of the C :fy Code tc read as ~bllows: Exc,.-pt as the context may otherwise require, the terms used in this Ordinance ~ave the ?ollowing meanings: (a) '~2iL"' means the City' of Ukiah. (b) "Medical Mari~u.,na Commission" and "commission" mean the Medical Marijuana Review and Oversight Commission. The Uldah MedicaI Marijuana Re' and Oversight Commission shall consist of seven members nominated and appoinl parsuant to rl~is section. The Mayor shall nominate three member, to the commis and the Ci~ Council shall appoint, by motion, four other membem to the commis~. F~.~ch nomination of the Mayer shall be subject to approval by the City Council, an be the subv~ct of a public hearing and vote within 40 days. If the Ctty Councit fai on a mayciral nomination within 40 days of the date the nomination is transmitted Clerk of the Ci~ Counctl, the nominee shall be deemed approved. Appointments ~ING qD ['HE ~g ,licy m of )y kiah ion, shall the the commission shall become effective on the da~e the City Council adopts a motion approving me nomination or on the 41st day following the date the mayoral nomim was transmitted to the Clerk of the City Council if the City Council fails to act upo: nomination prior to such date. Of the three members nominated by the Mayor, the Mayor shall nominate one ~ to represent the interests of City neighborhood associations or groups, one member represent the interests of medical marijuana patients, and one member to represent interests of the !aw enforcement community. Of l he four members of the commiss' ap~inted by the City Council, two members shall represent the interests of City neighborhood associations or groups, one member shall represent the interests of t} medical marijuana community, and one member shall represent the interests of the health community. To stagger the terms of the members, the initial appointments to the commissiox be as follows: the Mayor shall nominate two member.~ to serve terms of four years, member to serve a term of three years, and one member to serve a term of two yeah the three remaining members of the commission, the City Council shall appoint om member to serve a term of four ye~s, one member to serve a term of thee years, a~ member to serve a term of two years. Except for appointments to fill a vacancy, al subsequent appointments shall be for a term of four years. SECTION THREE: ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUAN~ COMMISSION (a) Establishment of Commission. There is hereby established flue UI Medical Marijuana Review and Over~ight Commission consisting of seven membe (b) Appointment of Commiuionera. Appointment of the members o! commission shall be as set forth in the Ukiah City Code: (¢) Terms of Commissioners. For purposes of staggering the terms ot commissioners, the initial appointments shall have terms as follows: three commissioners shall have initial terms of four years, two commissioners shall have terms of three years, and two commissioners shall have initial terms of two years. tenms of the initial appointees to the commission shall be deemed to commence up~ .same date, which shall be the date upon which the last of the seven initial appointe~ assumes office. Therea/ter, all appointments and reappo~ ~tments shall be for a ten four years. (d) Chairperson. The commission shall, anm,ally, elect a chairperson shall serve fo,' a term of one year. The commission may reappoint the chairperson serve additional terms. ~mber :o ae ~n ablic sM. Il )nc Of one the the Lnitial n the of ~ho 0 SECTION FOUR: POWERS AND DUTIES OF MEDICAL. MARI,rl COMMISSION The commission shall have the following powers and duties: (a) Accept re'view, gather information regarding, and conduct hearings complaints relating to medical marijuana gardens and dispensaries, including, but limited to, complaints regarding odor, increased traffic, fire hazards, and crime, cz with the applicable law, regulations and the good neighbor policy or policies for fl location or locations of the establishment or evenl for ~vhich the permit is sought. (b) Coordinate with all relevant City departments for the conduct of an,. inspection or investigation necessary or appropriate for the full and fair c, onsideral complaints regarding medical marijuana gardens and dispensaries. (c) Develop and recommend to the Mayor and City Council "good neit! policies" that balance competing interests and promote the health, safer3, and well the citizens of and visitors to Ukiah. (d) Mediate disputes between persons affected by medical marijuana g~ and dispensaries, and the persons, who nm them. (e) Prepare and submit to the Mayor and City Council a report analyzi~ commission's effectiveness in advancing the policies specified in Section One, an( making recommendations related thereto. The commission shall s'ubmit the repo Mayor and City Council within one year of effective date of this Ordinance. -and than once every five years thereafter. ANA pan lot asis~ent on of lbor re of 'dens the to the less Attachment # ~ I Senate Bill No. 420 CHAPTER 875 An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances. [Approved by Governor October 12, 2003. Filed with Secretary of State October 12, 2003.] I~E~SLATIVE COtmSEI:S INCEST SB 420, Vasconcellos. Medical marijuana. Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, prohibits any physician from being punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. The act prohibits the provisions of law making unlawful the possession or cultivation of marijuana from applying to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. This bill would require the State Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and would establish procedures under which a qualified patient with an identification card may use marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would specify the department's duties in this regard, including developing related protocols and forms, and establishing application and renewal fees for the program. The bill would impose various duties upon county health departments relating to the issuance of identification cards, thus creating a state-mandated local program. The bill would create various crimes related to the identification card program, thus imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to set forth and clarify details concerning possession and cultivation limits, and other regulations, as specified. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General to recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in the bill. The bill would require the Attorney General to develop and adopt guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that 93 Ch. 875 -- 2 -- reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) On November 6, 1996, the people of the State of California enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (hereafter the act), codified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code, in order to allow seriously ill residents of the state, who have the oral or written approval or recommendation of a physician, to use marijuana for medical purposes without fear of criminal liability under Sections 11357 and 11358 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) However, reports from across the state have revealed problems and uncertainties in the act that have impeded the ability of law enforcement officers to enforce its provisions as the voters intended and, therefore, have prevented qualified patients and designated primary caregivers from obtaining the protections afforded by the act. (3) Furthermore, the enactment of this law, as well as other recent legislation dealing with pain control, demonstrates that more information is needed to assess the number of individuals across the state who are suffering from serious medical conditions that are not being adequately alleviated through the use of conventional medications. (4) In addition, the act called upon the state and the federal government to develop a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need thereof. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature, therefore, to do all of the following: (1) Clarify the scope of the application of the act and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects. (c) It is also the intent of the Legislature to address additional issues that were not included within the act, and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the act. 93 3 Ch. 875 (d) The Legislature further finds and declares both of the following: (1) A state identification card program will further the goals outlined in this section. (2) With respect to individuals, the identification system established pursuant to this act must be wholly voluntary, and a patient entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code need not possess an identification card in order to claim the protections afforded by that section. (e) The Legislature further finds and declares that it enacts this act pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SEC. 2. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) is added to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, to read: Article 2.5. Medical Marijuana Program 11362.7. For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Attending physician" means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient's medical record the physician's assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate. (b) "Department" means the State Department of Health Services. (c) "Person with an identification card" means an individual who is a qualified patient who has applied for and received a valid identification card pursuant to this article. (d) "Primary caregiver" means the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, and may include any of the following: (1) In any case in which a qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or supportive services, or both, from a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to 93 Ch. 875 4 Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 1569) of Division 2, a hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1725) of Division 2, the owner or operator, or no more than three employees who are designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health agency, if designated as a primary caregiver by that qualified patient or person with an identification card. (2) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card, if every qualified patient or person with an identification card who has designated that individual as a primary caregiver resides in the same city or county as the primary caregiver. (3) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver, if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by any other qualified patient or person with an identification card. (e) A primary caregiver shall be at least 18 years of age, unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card or the primary caregiver is a person otherwise entitled to make medical decisions under state law pursuant to Sections 6922, 7002, 7050, or 7120 of the Family Code. (f) "Qualified patient" means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article. (g) "Identification card" means a document issued by the State Department of Health Services that document identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. (h) "Serious medical condition" means all of the following medical conditions: (1) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). (2) Anorexia. (3) Arthritis. (4) Cachexia. (5) Cancer. (6) Chronic pain. (7) Glaucoma. (8) Migraine. (9) Persistent muscle spasms, including, but not limited to, spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. (10) Seizures, including, but not limited to, seizures associated with epilepsy. 7--+ 93 -- 5-- Ch. 875 (11) Severe nausea. (12) Any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either: (A) Substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336). (B) If not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health. (i) "Written documentation" means accurate reproductions of those portions of a patient's medical records that have been created by the attending physician, that contain the information required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.715, and that the patient may submit to a county health department or the county's designee as part of an application for an identification card. 11362.71. (a) (1) The department shall establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients who satisfy the requirements of this article and voluntarily apply to the identification card program. (2) The department shall establish and maintain a 24-hour, toll-free telephone number that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of an identification card issued by the department, until a cost-effective Internet Web-based system can be developed for this purpose. (b) Every county health department, or the county's designee, shall do all of the following: (1) Provide applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program. (2) Receive and process completed applications in accordance with Section 11362.72. (3) Maintain records of identification card programs. (4) Utilize protocols developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d). (5) Issue identification cards developed by the department to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers. (c) The county board of supervisors may designate another health-related governmental or nongovernmental entity or organization to perform the functions described in subdivision (b), except for an entity or organization that cultivates or distributes marijuana. (d) The department shall develop all of the following: (1) Protocols that shall be used by a county health department or the county's designee to implement the responsibilities described in subdivision (b), including, but not limited to, protocols to confirm the 93 Ch. 875 -- 6-- accuracy of information contained in an application and to protect the confidentiality of program records. (2) Application forms that shall be issued to requesting applicants. (3) An identification card that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and an identification card that identifies the person's designated primary caregiver, if any. The two identification cards developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be easily distinguishable from each other. (e) No person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount established pursuant to this article, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsified, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the provisions of this article. (f) It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an identification card in order to claim the protections of Section 11362.5. 11362.715. (a) A person who seeks an identification card shall pay the fee, as provided in Section 11362.755, and provide all of the following to the county health department or the county's designee on a form developed and provided by the department: (1) The name of the person, and proof of his or her residency within the county. (2) Written documentation by the attending physician in the person's medical records stating that the person has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate. (3) The name, office address, office telephone number, and California medical license number of the person's attending physician. (4) The name and the duties of the primary caregiver. (5) A government-issued photo identification card of the person and of the designated primary caregiver, if any. If the applicant is a person under 18 years of age, a certified copy of a birth certificate shall be deemed sufficient proof of identity. (b) If the person applying for an identification card lacks the capacity to make medical decisions, the application may be made by the person's legal representative, including, but not limited to, any of the following: (1) A conservator with authority to make medical decisions. (2) An attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney for health care or surrogate decisionmaker authorized under another advanced health care directive. (3) Any other individual authorized by statutory or decisional law to make medical decisions for the person. 7 Ch. 875 (c) The legal representative described in subdivision (b) may also designate in the application an individual, including himself or herself, to serve as a primary caregiver for the person, provided that the individual meets the definition of a primary caregiver. (d) The person or legal representative submitting the written information and documentation described in subdivision (a) shall retain a copy thereof. 11362.72. (a) Within 30 days of receipt of an application for an identification card, a county health department or the county's designee shall do all of the following: (I) For purposes of processing the application, verify that the information contained in the application is accurate. If the person is less than 18 years of age, the county health department or its designee shall also contact the parent with legal authority to make medical decisions, legal guardian, or other person or entity with legal authority to make medical decisions, to verify the information. (2) Verify with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California that the attending physician has a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy in the state. (3) Contact the attending physician by facsimile, telephone, or mail to confirm that the medical records submitted by the patient are a true and correct copy of those contained in the physician's office records. When contacted by a county health department or the county's designee, the attending physician shall confirm or deny that the contents of the medical records are accurate. (4) Take a photograph or otherwise obtain an electronically transmissible image of the applicant and of the designated primary caregiver, if any. (5) Approve or deny the application. If an applicant who meets the requirements of Section 11362.715 can establish that an identification card is needed on an emergency basis, the county or its designee shall issue a temporary identification card that shall be valid for 30 days from the date of issuance. The county, or its designee, may extend the temporary identification card for no more than 30 days at a time, so long as the applicant continues to meet the requirements of this paragraph. (b) If the county health department or the county's designee approves the application, it shall, within 24 hours, or by the end of the next working day of approving the application, electronically transmit the following information to the department: (1) A unique user identification number of the applicant. (2) The date of expiration of the identification card. (3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application. 93 Ch. 875 8 (c) The county health department or the county's designee shall issue an identification card to the applicant and to his or her designated primary caregiver, if any, within five working days of approving the application. (d) In any case involving an incomplete application, the applicant shall assume responsibility for rectifying the deficiency. The county shall have 14 days from the receipt of information from the applicant pursuant to this subdivision to approve or deny the application. 11362.735. (a) An identification card issued by the county health department shall be serially numbered and shall contain all of the following: (1) A unique user identification number of the cardholder. (2) The date of expiration of the identification card. (3) The name and telephone number of the county health department or the county's designee that has approved the application. (4) A 24-hour, toll-free telephone number, to be maintained by the department, that will enable state and local law enforcement officers to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of the card. (5) Photo identification of the cardholder. (b) A separate identification card shall be issued to the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, and shall include a photo identification of the caregiver. 11362.74. (a) The county health department or the county's designee may deny an application only for any of the following reasons: (1) The applicant did not provide the information required by Section 11362.715, and upon notice of the deficiency pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 11362.72, did not provide the information within 30 days. (2) The county health department or the county's designee determines that the information provided was false. (3) The applicant does not meet the criteria set forth in this article. (b) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may not reapply for six months from the date of denial unless otherwise authorized by the county health department or the county's designee or by a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) Any person whose application has been denied pursuant to subdivision (a) may appeal that decision to the department. The county health department or the county's designee shall make available a telephone number or address to which the denied applicant can direct an appeal. 11362.745. (a) An identification card shall be valid for a period of one year. 93 Ch. 875 (b) Upon annual renewal of an identification card, the county health department or its designee shall verify all new information and may verify any other information that has not changed. (c) The county health department or the county's designee shall transmit its determination of approval or denial of a renewal to the department. 11362.755. (a) The department shall establish application and renewal fees for persons seeking to obtain or renew identification cards that are sufficient to cover the expenses incurred by the department, including the startup cost, the cost of reduced fees for Medi-Cal beneficiaries in accordance with subdivision (b), the cost of identifying and developing a cost-effective Internet Web-based system, and the cost of maintaining the 24-hour toll-free telephone number. Each county health department or the county's designee may charge an additional fee for all costs incurred by the county or the county's designee for administering the program pursuant to this article. (b) Upon satisfactory proof of participation and eligibility in the Medi-Cal program, a Medi-Cal beneficiary shall receive a 50 percent reduction in the fees established pursuant to this section. 11362.76. (a) A person who possesses an identification card shall: (1) Within seven days, notify the county health department or the county's designee of any change in the person's attending physician or designated primary caregiver, if any. (2) Annually submit to the county health department or the county's designee the following: (A) Updated written documentation of the person's serious medical condition. (B) The name and duties of the person's designated primary caregiver, if any, for the forthcoming year. (b) If a person who possesses an identification card fails to comply with this section, the card shall be deemed expired. If an identification card expires, the identification card of any designated primary caregiver of the person shall also expire. (c) If the designated primary caregiver has been changed, the previous primary caregiver shall return his or her identification card to the department or to the county health department or the county's designee. (d) If the owner or operator or an employee of the owner or operator of a provider has been designated as a primary caregiver pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 11362.7, of the qualified patient or person with an identification card, the owner or operator shall notify the county health department or the county's designee, pursuant 93 Ch. 875 m 10-- to Section 11362.715, if a change in the designated primary caregiver has occurred. 11362.765. (a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the individual to smoke or otherwise consume marijuana unless otherwise authorized by this article, nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit. (b) Subdivision (a) shall apply to all of the following: (1) A qualified patient or a person with an identification card who transports or processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use. (2) A designated primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient of the primary caregiver, or to the person with an identification card who has designated the individual as a primary caregiver. (3) Any individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient or person or acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the qualified patient or person. (c) A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to an eligible qualified patient or person with an identification card to enable that person to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution or punishment under Section 11359 or 11360. 11362.77. (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) If 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. 93 -- 11 ~ Ch. 875 (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. (e) The Attorney General may recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in this section. These recommendations, if any, shall be made to the Legislature no later than December 1, 2005, and may be made only after public comment and consultation with interested organizations, including, but not limited to, patients, health care professionals, researchers, law enforcement, and local governments. Any recommended modification shall be consistent with the intent of this article and shall be based on currently available scientific research. (f) A qualified patient or a person holding a valid identification card, or the designated primary caregiver of that qualified patient or person, may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this article. 11362.775. Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. 11362.78. A state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently. I1362.785. (a) Nothing in this article shall require any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana on the property or premises of any place of employment or during the hours of employment or on the property or premises of any jail, correctional facility, or other type of penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person shall not be prohibited or prevented from obtaining and submitting the written information and documentation necessary to apply for an identification card on the basis that the person is incarcerated in a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained. 5--II 93 Ch. 875 --12-- (c) Nothing in this article shall prohibit a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution in which prisoners reside or persons under arrest are detained, from permitting a prisoner or a person under arrest who has an identification card, to use marijuana for medical purposes under circumstances that will not endanger the health or safety of other prisoners or the security of the facility. (d) Nothing in this article shall require a governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider or health care service plan to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana. 11362.79. Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law. (b) In or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence. (c) On a schoolbus. (d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated. (e) While operating a boat. 11362.795. (a) (1) Any criminal defendant who is eligible to use marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that the court confirm that he or she is allowed to use medical marijuana while he or she is on probation or released on bail. (2) The court's decision and the reasons for the decision shall be stated on the record and an entry stating those reasons shall be made in the minutes of the court. (3) During the period of probation or release on bail, if a physician recommends that the probationer or defendant use medical marijuana, the probationer or defendant may request a modification of the conditions of probation or bail to authorize the use of medical marijuana. (4) The court's consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section. (b) (1) Any person who is to be released on parole from a jail, state prison, school, road camp, or other state or local institution of confinement and who is eligible to use medical marijuana pursuant to Section 11362.5 may request that he or she be allowed to use medical marijuana during the period he or she is released on parole. A parolee's written conditions of parole shall reflect whether or not a request for a modification of the conditions of his or her parole to use medical marijuana was made, and whether the request was granted or denied. (2) During the period of the parole, where a physician recommends that the parolee use medical marijuana, the parolee may request a modification of the conditions of the parole to authorize the use of medical marijuana. 93 -- 13-- Ch. 875 (3) Any parolee whose request to use medical marijuana while on parole was denied may pursue an administrative appeal of the decision. Any decision on the appeal shall be in writing and shall reflect the reasons for the decision. (4) The administrative consideration of the modification request authorized by this subdivision shall comply with the requirements of this section. 11362.8. No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or take other disciplinary action against a licensee based solely on the fact that the licensee has performed acts that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the licensee's role as a designated primary caregiver to a person who is a qualified patient or who possesses a lawful identification card issued pursuant to Section 11362.72. However, this section shall not apply to acts performed by a physician relating to the discussion or recommendation of the medical use of marijuana to a patient. These discussions or recommendations, or both, shall be governed by Section 11362.5. 11362.81. (a) A person specified in subdivision (b) shall be subject to the following penalties: (1) For the first offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than six months or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. (2) For a second or subsequent offense, imprisonment in the county jail for no more than one year, or a f'me not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both. (b) Subdivision (a) applies to any of the following: (1) A person who fraudulently represents a medical condition or fraudulently provides any material misinformation to a physician, county health department or the county's designee, or state or local law enforcement agency or officer, for the purpose of falsely obtaining an identification card. (2) A person who steals or fraudulently uses any person's identification card in order to acquire, possess, cultivate, transport, use, produce, or distribute marijuana. (3) A person who counterfeits, tampers with, or fraudulently produces an identification card. (4) A person who breaches the confidentiality requirements of this article to information provided to, or contained in the records of, the department or of a county health department or the county's designee pertaining to an identification card program. (c) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (a), any person described in subdivision (b) may be precluded from attempting 93 Ch. 875 -- 14 m to obtain, or obtaining or using, an identification card for a period of up to six months at the discretion of the court. (d) In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. 11362.82. If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this article is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. 11362.83. Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. In addition, no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for other costs mandated by the state because this act includes additional revenue that is specifically intended to fund the costs of the state mandate in an amount sufficient to fund the cost of the state mandate, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. 93 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8a MEETING DATE: July 6, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING UTILIZING AN ALTERNATE DATE OR TIME FOR PROCLAMATIONS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - - COUNCILMEMBER McCOWEN Councilmember McCowen has requested the Council discuss the possibility of utilizing either the fifth Wednesday of the month or meet before the Council's regular scheduled meeting time to discuss proclamations, informational items and general discussion items, rather than including them on the bi-weekly regular Council agendas. This item was briefly discussed at the first Council meeting in .lune and is now being reagendized for discussion and possible action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and provide direction ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Councilmember McCowen Candace Horsley, City Manager App roved: ~~_ ~/~,~_~~ Candace Horsley, l~ty Manager AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a MEETING DATE: July 6, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING FENCE AT GIBSON CREEK- - PHIL BALDWIN Councilmember Baldwin is requesting Council to discuss the fence spanning Gibson Creek off of Standley Street. His letter is attached for Council's review. RECOMMENDED ACTION' Discuss and provide direction to staff ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Phil Baldwin Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment #1 -Baldwin letter of June 29, 2005 Approved: Candace Horsley, City i~nager June 29, 2005 Councilmembers, Attached is a letter from our Department of Public Works to Jim Nix stating that his fence spanning Gibson Creek is in the floodxvay and is a violation of the City Municipal Code section 9669. This April 29, 2005 letter of Tim Eriksen, Senior Civil Engineer of Ukiah, states the City expects "this fence to be removed immediately." As of today, the the fence remains in place. I suggest that our Council direct staff to contact Mr. Nix giving him ten days to comply, after which time City staff will remove the fence and bill him for the expense of that effort. This fence, which is not simply a potential flood hazard but a barrier to migrating wildlife and an eyesore as well, is accompanied by eight or more highly visible "No Trespassing" signs nailed to conifers and by prison style barbed wire adjacent to Standley Street. The relatively new chain link fence and the wrought iron spanning the Creek indicate this most beautiful natural area in the City of Ukiah is increasingly a burden on the Nix family. This natural asset of Ukiah is on the most popular walking, biking, and running route in the City. But the apparent fears of Mr. Nix now yield ever more invasive, hostile, ugly construction in 'Gibson Creek Canyon. As this must be a tiring and expensive burden for the Nix family, I suggest we direct staff to have conducted an appraisal of this unbuildable canyon property surrounding the City owned Fish Hatchery site and to return to-this 'Council at the first meeting in September-with a cost for City acquisition 'to preserve this 'tremendous natural resource 'for future generations of Ukiahans and to return it to its former beautiful state. Phil Baldwin Mr. Jim Nix 7 Cherry Court Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: FEMA VIOLATION AT THE NIX PROPERTY LOCATED ON STANDLEY STREET APN: 001-030-03 Dear Mr. Nix: It has come to the attention of the City that you have constructed a fence in the Floodway of Gibson Creek. The Floodway is an area designated on the Floodway Map by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to preserve the reliability and accuracy of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). These FIRM maps are commonly known as "floodplain maps". This encroachment into the Floodway is a violation of City Municipal Code section 9669. Violations of the provisions of the Chapter by failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. We appreciate your attention to this matter and expect this fence to be removed immediately. If you can not remove the fence in a timely manner the City would like you to contact us so we can discuss a schedule for the fence removal. If you have any questions please call me at 463-6284..I will be happy to help you with any technical questions you may have. The City has Floodway and Floodplain Maps, which are difficult to obtain, as well as several publications related to the regulations. If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to call me. Tim Eriksen Senior Civil Engineer Cc: Candace Horsley, City Manager Diana Steele, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Last pdnted 4/29/2005 4:06 PM C:~rojects~FEMA~Property Owner Issues~,lix letter 4-29-05.doc 300 SEMINARY AVENUE UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 Phone# 707~463-6200 Fax~ 707~463-6204 Web Address: www, cityofukiah.corn AGENDA ITEM NO: 9b MEETING DATE: July 6, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING FORMULA BUSINESS ORDINANCES- - PHIL BALDWIN Councilmember Baldwin is requesting Council to review and discuss examples of municipal ordinances limiting or banning formula business within City limits. Councilmember Baldwin's letter and examples of such ordinances are attached. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and provide direction to staff ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised' Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Phil Baldwin Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment #1 -Baldwin letter of June 29, 2005 Attachment #2 --Sample Formula Business Ordinances Approved: Candace Horsley, City Mana'fl,~r Alfochmenf ~ ._ / June 29, 2005 Fellow Members of the Council, Attached.please find summaries of local c)rdinances limiting or banning formula businesses in various municipalities. I suggest we receive advice from the pUblic, then discuss appropriate action'to preserve ~ the character of'Ukiah and support locally owned business. Our recent experience with Walgrccns shoutd provide sufficient incentive for this Council' to move-for such preservation-as expeditiously-as possible. Sincerely, Phil ~Baldwin New ~,ules home The Homelown Advanlage - Reviving lkrrally Ownexl Business Attachment ~._ I _1. J I Jl Agriculture Environment kinancc IIIIIIIIIIII II IIII II II II'HI h~bnnation Ta~fon A~k Dr. Dave Home Pa,ac About New Rtfles Rules Imlcx ..R~ports & Links Support Our Work Contact e-Maii titis ~v to a t'riexv, i! Formula Business Restrictions Fom~tda busim~ss~s mctud~ rctait stoic% p..-saams, hoids ~ e · 'slahlislm~alls ~ ane ~lui~e.d by cotmacl io adopi stam~Oizcxl methods of operation, decor, uniforms, architecture or other t~x~res virtually identical to businesses located' in other communities. Several communities have banned c.~'tain types of tbrmuh businesses. These laws do not prevent a chain store from coming in, btu they do require co, intO~. This has proved a sig~ficam deterrent ~o chains, whic4a gcmevafly refine to veer from thei~ standardized, cook've~t~ter approach-. Sevexal cities have prohibited f~mula restamm~ts, but not other types of formula businesses (including Bainbridge Island.(3m~e!. Pacific Gmye, Sambel. ,Solvanm and Yc~k~. (~hers (including Bristol, (?ahs!oea, Coronado, and gan Francisco) have placed restrictiom on fOrm~tla retail Stt'~cs as well. l~ather than braining fomntla h~ine~ses enlh'ely, s~e ~~fies ~ ~r n~, .~m, t~ ~e, flt~s ~ m~ ~ ~ t~ula ~Cs in ~ dry at any <~ Most of thee o~-e ~Ay riD's4&, but ~y nmy ~ ~ s~n~ to ~v~ ~y a ~dfic ~a ~4t~n ~ ~mfi~, stroh as a ~st~c ~w~k)~ ~S~c~ (s~ Bristol ~d Pt~ Jefferson). c~n ~ ~e a ~ig~-by-~gh~ ~h. U~ law, s~~ ndgh~ ~ ~6fi~. ~ney We ~e ~ of mquesfi~ a ~blic ~fing ~ subj~fing ~q~ allows f~ vaD~g &~ees of re~flafi~ m ~h nd~h~L S~e ~ve ~ed fo~fla bminesses enfi~ly. ~em nei~~ may ~6fi~ t~ city to allow tb~ula ~nes~s xx4t~t ~gicafi~. ~se ~~s We ~en u~ld. in Apl~AS Corm d~ision ~~ ~~'s f~ula ~ss ~i~. RULES: Arcata~ CA w~ch ~ts ~ num~ of t~ula ~mm~ts ~ ~ riD' to no m~ ~n ~fi~ at ~' ~ time, t~e ¢~fi~ ta~fly :has ~ f~a ~ ~ tis ~.) A f~a re~t is Bainbridge Island, W A On June 8, 1989, a FmNic hearing on the subject of formula mstaumms was hekL Overwhelming public ctnnment favored elimination of formula takeamt f¢~d re.s~ammas m all z~n~ ~4thin the city. A finding and t~omn~',dmio~ to that effect wm~ then~tf~ made to ( ;i.ty (;ore.il. The City Council lin& a lbamula take-out lbod restamm~ts t~4a~sent a type of business that is mttc~oNle-oriented or of a particu~ nature that the c~stcncc of one such rcsmuranl in thc High School Road zone is a sufficient maximum number of that use for the village ch,~v~ter to be preset'ed. Bristol. RI In May _9004, Bristol, Rh<x~ Island. a community of Z~,000 people about haft an hotrr southeast of Prm'iden~, adopted the following orditmnce, which rcslricCs fi>rmula'busincsscs in the town's historic &)wn~)wn. Thc ordimmce bars formula businesses large~ than 2,500 square fc~ or that take up more .than 65 feet of street frontage from locating in the downtoxs~ Calistoga. CA hi 1996, the town of Calistoga, California emacted an ordinance that pn~hibiLs formula rcsmuranks 'and visit~w acct~mmodalitms, 'and rcxtuircs that other tbrmula businesses underg~ review and apply tbr a special use permit Bt tp://¥~n~.~.~retait.ffc, m u~a Articles & R~ports Bi__o:Box tm_va~a Fac. tshects Lemslafive Haffc~qn Ncws~krclu vc ·..:more kxqs & htwv-to I_DC,AL POLICIES: Co~mnunity hn~m~;t R¢~,iew Comprchcn_4vc Hans Devetooment Moratoria Formul-a Busin¢.~s Resmcticms ~ htrchasiog Preferences Nci ghborl}cm, d- Serving /ones Su)re Size C-a_m RFI~R)NAI. POI.ICIF. S: Re,_._ncmal lm_tmc~ Rexiew Tax-Base Sharing STATE POLICIES: Bie Box Tax Coq.~)rate Mcxmte fax Cmbing Cot~mc Wdfme hltcmcl Sales Tax Fain~ss Li~mtmg Vertical Inte_m~ati~l Local Purch,~-in g Preferences Mandatot3~ lm~.t Rcviov Pmtccm~ NATIONAL POLICTIES: Antim.~st; Di~.fiminalion lmeme! Sales Tax Fairr~ REI,ATED POI,ICIF~$: Comm[util~ -(_hancd from the llanning Oanmissioa The ciD' council concluded t~t regulating formula btLsinesses was necesmry to preserve the tmitlue character of (Lalistoga's &)~ntc, wn ccnnmercial d/strict, including "regulating the a.~pect of b~inesses. ·. that is reflective of tile Ifistory ami lxx~pte {ff tim ccumnuai~.'. 2., Car mel-byqhe-Sea~ CA This small city in the mid-1980s became the first town in the country to enact a ftmnula restaurant ban, which prohibiks last Ikxxt, drive-in and formula f,~xl establishments. In Carmd a busineas is c(ax~idercd a fixmula restaurant if it is "required by contractuaI or other arrangements to offer standardized mcnus, h~grcdicnts, food prcpmtion, cmptoycc tmifonns, mlerior decor, hgnage or exlerior design," or "adopts a name, at~arance or food presenhation fo~n~ which causes it to be substantially identical to mmther restaurant regardless of ownership or location." Coronado, This city of 20,000 in southcm Califomm has m'o zoning ordinances that limit rotunda lnksine~scs. A fimnula btz~,4ness is olin, that is required by ccmtractmal or other arrm]gement lo maintain a standardized ,array of services or merchandise, and standardized architecture, uniforms, logos, decor, etc. Cortmado has a formula restaurant ordinance and a formula retail ordinance. Pacific Grove. CA City Code fonbid.s any pcnmts for food cstabtkshmcnts that have thc lbltowing characleristics: s~ecializes m ~ order or quick .~r~fce food service, fesad is served primarily m paper, plastic or other disposable conmim:'.rs, custonm, rs may casily rcmovc t'~d or bcvciagc {m~duc. ts from thc food scrvicc cstablishmcnt for consumption, and it is a formula food service establishment required by contractual or other arrangements to operate with standardized menus, ingredients, fired prelmrafion, amhitectm'e, tk:ct~-, tmiftms, or .4nfilar slamkzadizcd f~4l~res. Pot t Jefferson. NY On June 26, 2(~30, Port Jcl]eBoI1, New York enacted an ordimancc barring tbrmula thst Ibod restaurants from the village's historic commercial and waterfront districts. The meastece was In:oposed by the Port Jefferson Ci,dc A~,~'iafion, which has fought to tmsvcnt McY'Xmald's from lacaling in lira xfllage center and to protect the comsnuniD,'s unique character and ambiance~ Pon 'lownsc .nd, The ordinance limits formula retail stores and restaurants to a single commercial ztwec 'along thc main ro~d leading into Port Townmnd (they arc barred from all other areas of town, inchMing the historic Iown center). It further Sill. relates that fommla hlsi/lesses may no{ exceed 3&RK) ~,qtmre feet in si;0z nor ~x:ctq>y nu~rc tl~m _."30 linear fcct of ~rcct fnmtagc. S,'m Francisco, CA San Francisco's Formula Business Ordinance adds formula Erasinesses to thc Iisi IA' t[sc,s Ihal re, trite neigl~rhtzxl nolilication trader city law. Residents will be notified whenever a tbrmula retail business applies to open in their neighborhood. They v~411 then have the option of requesting a public hearing and subjecting the applicant to a list (ff c~tc~ia. In atktititm, form~fla retailers are banned entirely ti'om the tbur-block Hayes Valley business disuSct and are automatically requi~ed to trade, go a heating and review in thc Cole Valley ncighborh~xxt. San Juala IBauti,~ta, CA In 21)04, San Juan Bautista, CA, a sSIlage of i,7(~) people 45 miles somh of San Jose, -,~k)pted the/bllo~sng ordinance, which bars all formula retail s"lores and restam'anls, mKl all stcwes over 5,0(RI .,AlU,are feel. Sanibet, FL As part of Sambel's efforts to write a Vihcna Statement which reflects the public's desires to remain a small town conmmm~', remain tmiqt~e thrcaigh a developmem pattern which reflects the predominmme of natural conditions ,'md characleristics over human inrms, ions, :md avoid "atflo-m4nm" develolm~enl inthlea~ces, the city enacfed an ordhmnce ba~ming foemula restaurant~ in 1996. Sausalito~ CA The city ~ tSetermmed that presemng a 'balanced mix of local, regiona/, maintain ami );tXal~4e thc kmgqetm ctxugmfic health of visilor-sc~Mng businesses ,-md the cammt~' as a whole. Therefore, the ovcr-conccntmtion of formula rctail businesses will not bc allowcd, and all permitted formula retail eslablisbments shall create a umque visual appe,'uance th,al reflecl ,-md/or complement the disfinetive ~ tmique historical character of Satk~alim, a~t that no such establishment shall project a ~&suaI a~em-ance that is homogenou~s with its establishments in other commmfities. Solvang. CA The Land Use Element of the City's General Hah provides that a key issue identified m the process of preF, aring the General Plan was to maintain the image of Soh,~ as a small-town village m an open space/agricafltuml http:Ifwww.~o~/m~it~ .setting. This unique character would be ~tversely ~'fected by' a proliferatioa of 'formuta restaurants.' Y,ork~ ME At a ~vu m~u~ in Ma5' 2004, ~esidents ~' Y~k, M~, v~ m ~e~ ~e town's z~g or~ m ~bit t~n~a r~t~. Y~ is a c~ c~ty tff 13,~ ~c ~t ten miles ~ ~' ~ New More; Protecting Lrx~dly OwnoJ Retail: Phmnhlg T(~)I,s £{ar Curbing Chmns mid Nm'truing tIome~'own Businesses [PDFI t'9' Stacy MitOtett, Main Street News, F-,ebrtmry 2004. {cLNationat Main Street Cemcr, Nalhmal Tm, a fig Hi~ic Pre~rvatkm. All fights resets-ed. Copyright 1999-2005 - Institute tbr Local Self-Relianc~ Thc ,New Rules Project- http:. ~¥v,w.ncw~lcs.org Imp: !/www.~.ony'ret alt/formula AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: July 6, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MENDOCINO TRANSIT AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVE TO Attached is a letter from the Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) requesting the reappointment of Marl Rodin to another two year term on the MTA Board of Directors. The current term expires on .lune 30, 2005 and Councilmember Rodin is willing to accept an additional term. Staff is requesting Council's reappointment of Councilmember Rodin to the MTA Board of Directors. RECOMMENDED ACTION: year term Reappoint Councilmember Rodin for an additional two- ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Candace Horsley, City Manager Letter from MTA Approved:' '~~,~ -"~"~ M~an g Candace Horsley, City er Attachment SERVING MENDOCINO COUNTY SINCE 1976 Mendocino Transit Authority June 14, 2005 Ms. Candace Horsley, City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Dear MS. Horsley, RE: Reappointment of Mari Rodin to the MTA Board of Directors The City of Ukiah appoints one member to a two-year term on the Board of Directors of the Mendocino Transit Authority. The term for that seat, now held by Council member Mari Rodin, expires on June 30, 2005. Appointees to the MTA Board may serve successive terms without limitation and need not be elected officials. Ms Rodin is willing and quite able to represent the City of Ukiah on the Board. With the major Ukiah Transit Center project coming up, consistent representation is important. Therefore, I am writing to request that the City of Ukiah reappoint Council member Mari Rodin to the MTA Board of Directors. Sincerely, Bruce Richard General Manager c: MTA Board 241 Plant Road · Ukiah, California 95482 · (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 AGENDA ITEM NO: ea MEETING DATE: July 6, 2005 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD The City has received a letter from the president of the Library Advisory Board of Mendocino County regarding the City of Ukiah Council appointment to its Board. Due to scheduling conflicts the City's representative has been unable to attend the last three meetings. The Library Board is now asking Council discussion regarding this issue as they have been experiencing difficulty in holding meetings due to a lack of a quorum. Staff requests Council discuss and direction on this matter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and direction. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Mendocino Library Advisory Board Candace Horsley, City Manager Approved: Candace Horsley, City Ma'l~er ITEM NO. 9e DATE: July 6, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT- MANAGEMENT The City's labor consultants have met with representatives of the Management Unit to discuss negotiation items for the period from October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2007. The negotiations have resulted in a tentative agreement, which has been ratified by the Unit. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding is being submitted for Council's review and discussion in closed session with the City Manager. If the City Council approves the agreement in closed session, then adoption of the attached resolution in open public session would be necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consideration of MOU and adoption of MOU resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding for the Management Unit for the term of October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2007. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt resolution. 2. Refer to Staff for amendments. Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A Melody Harris, Personnel Director Candace Horsley, City Manager 1. Resolution APPROVED:' .... ~~.,~~.~.. '~ Candace Horsley, City Manager 3:MOU~SRMgmt2005